Home routing is a useful technical solution for travelers interested in seamless internet access through their domestic provider. Users can also enjoy enhanced security if the provider...
cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/16595505
- Home routing and encryption technologies are making lawful interception harder for Europol
- PET-enabled home routing allows for secure communication, hindering law enforcement’s ability to intercept and monitor communications
- Europol suggests solutions such as disabling PET technologies and implementing cross-border interception standards to address the issue.
You must log in or register to comment.
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn’t great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don’t promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
- 0 users online
- 57 users / day
- 383 users / week
- 1.5K users / month
- 5.7K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 2.96K Posts
- 74.6K Comments
- Modlog
“lawful interception” is a fallacy.
De facto, if not in absolute.
There’s a dirty secret of telecom I found out working for a telco some years back: CALEA compliance is used more by unknown third parties more than actual law enforcement. When we’d get a subpoena for a CALEA wiretap, as often as not we’d just patch our logger into a pre-existing wiretap as configure a switch to enable one on a particular trunk, cable, and pair.
If it’s written in the law, it’s lawful. You can of course (and should!) debate about the morality of the diverse forms of lawful interception, but a blanket statement like ‘“lawful interception” is a fallacy’, is a fallacy in of itself.
Laws do not, did not ever, guarantee interception. It always allowed the police to try to intercept. The police hid bugs, tapped wires. Never in history the police said "for lawful interception to happen, all phones must come with preinstalled wiretap. The implication that “communications systems are too secure, there has to be a backdoor for lawful interception” is a fallacy.
The fallacy is imagining that “lawfulness” is an attribute that can be reliably detected on an implementation level.
What is more terrifying is when a elected leader argues against mass surveillance and then is shunned by the intelligence agency and their allies