Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Dutch government will introduce forced decryption law
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Dutch government will introduce forced decryption law

joepie91joepie91 Member, Patron Provider
edited November 2012 in General

http://tweakers.net/nieuws/85800/minister-gaat-ontsleutelplicht-invoeren.html

The government in the Netherlands will be introducing a law that forces suspects of a "child porn or terrorism case" to provide the decryption keys for any encrypted data they possess, similar to the decryption law in the United Kingdom.

"Een verdachte die zich zo heeft ingespannen om zijn activiteiten voor de buitenwereld te verhullen, moet rekening houden met de inzet van zwaardere middelen door de overheid om de burgers te beschermen", aldus Opstelten.

Translation:

"A suspect that has gone to such ends to hide his activities to the outside world, should take into account the use of heavier investigation methods by the government to protect civilians", according to Opstelten

Sounds a lot like "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide", doesn't it?

Everyone who still believes "the Netherlands is much more liberal than other countries" after reading this, you're fooling yourself. I fucking told you so.

«1

Comments

  • I never expected this law to actually go through, how many years until this law is for every citizen...

  • Oh boy.. this just gets worse.

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    For a second there I thought you said "child porn terrorism case." In which event I was about to say that's a person I want to meet...the one using child porn for terrorism.

    Still though...they'll have to wait until it comes out the other end after you swallow the paper.

  • Well, at least they are not banning encryption entirely, as some other countries. Or maybe that's the next thing they will do, who knows.

  • joepie91joepie91 Member, Patron Provider

    @rds100 said: Well, at least they are not banning encryption entirely, as some other countries.

    Eh, that is effectively exactly what they are doing. "You can encrypt things, until we want to see what's inside."

  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran
    edited November 2012

    @rds100 said: Well, at least they are not banning encryption entirely,

    That's a false argument, nothing stops the prosecutor to ask you the key by adding a charge of terrorism or CP, it costs nothing, after all, everyone who uses encryption does so to hide his CP collection and bomb blueprints, no honest citizen would do that.
    If the unencrypted material has no CP or terrorism files, they can be added, nobody will come out to protect a child molester or terrorist, so nobody will really look intot he sickening evidence, after all, looking at it will grant them jail terms.
    Welcome to the future.

  • Interesting, what key could you provide for the SSH session you had with a server or the https webpage you accessed?
    Giving the encryption key for some stored encrypted data is one thing, not allowing you to use secure communication at all is another. Ask @Asim

  • joepie91joepie91 Member, Patron Provider

    @rds100 said: Interesting, what key could you provide for the SSH session you had with a server

    Your private key.

    @rds100 said: or the https webpage you accessed?

    It would be practically impossible to outlaw SSL as well, due to ebanking.

  • @joepie91 said: Your private key.

    Which one? The ssh client doesn't need a private key to be able to connect to a server.

    And about banning SSL - i don't know, i think some countries already tried to do it - namely i remember seeing an article about Pakistan. Maybe Iran too.

  • @joepie91 said: "You can encrypt things, until we want to see what's inside."

    It will ultimately lead into this, starting with things nobody could defend, like terrorism and cp that is. This "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" attitude is just bullshit.
    What saddens me is how some people in here, LET, do not realize this despite being "internet experts" as in working in internet related jobs. Especially with this TOR thing and all.

    I appreciate your posts joepie91, you seem to have a good grasp on things regarding privacy and censorship.

  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran

    @fisle said: @joepie91 said: "You can encrypt things, until we want to see what's inside."

    In some countries the law system will need tobe changed so forced confessions to be allowed. This kind of attack has been rejected in courts as revealing the key will be providing self-incriminating evidence, even if the police would be right about the acusations.
    Torture, be it physical of psychological could be applied and "confessions" will be admissible, after all, it is allowed in Iran and Israel, why wouldnt christians do the same to protect their faith ?

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
    edited November 2012

    @Maounique said: why wouldnt christians do the same to protect their faith ?

    @jarland said: Take your anti-religion hate speech propaganda elsewhere.

    You're rivaling Dewlance & Randy.

  • @joepie91 said: forces suspects of a "child porn or terrorism case" to provide the decryption keys for any encrypted data they possess

    Or else?

    I mean, if you're accused of child pornography or terrorism and evidence is encrypted, I'd say a penalty for saying "I lost the keys" would be significantly less than giving them the evidence.

    This will hurt everyone except those who are supposedly targeted with this law.

  • joepie91joepie91 Member, Patron Provider

    @vedran said: Or else?

    I mean, if you're accused of child pornography or terrorism and evidence is encrypted, I'd say a penalty for saying "I lost the keys" would be significantly less than giving them the evidence.

    This will hurt everyone except those who are supposedly targeted with this law.

    Exactly.

  • @joepie91 said: Eh, that is effectively exactly what they are doing. "You can encrypt things, until we want to see what's inside."

    Not quite, plus the closest penalty (related to refusal of a government order) is at 3 months; knowing Dutch law I'd say "much more severe" works out to 6 months (apparently refusal of the encryption keys would be "more severe" in the eyes of the law).

    Also:

    http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=plausible-deniability

    You can give them a password.

    Regardless of that, from other news sources it seems they need to be able to reasonably build a case without the encrypted data, before they can even get the required authorization to ask for the keys.

  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran

    @qenox said: Regardless of that, from other news sources it seems they need to be able to reasonably build a case without the encrypted data, before they can even get the required authorization to ask for the keys.

    Indeed, and even if they ave the case, the argument will fall flat in court because you cannot be forced to give self-incriminating evidence.

  • @joepie91 said: the Netherlands will be introducing a law

    So it has not been passed?

  • @rds100 said: Giving the encryption key for some stored encrypted data is one thing, not allowing you to use secure communication at all is another. Ask @Asim

    100% true

  • qenoxqenox Member
    edited November 2012

    @miTgiB said: So it has not been passed?

    http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/nieuws/2012/11/28/nieuwe-maatregel-in-strijd-tegen-kinderpornografie.html

    No, in early 2013 the minister will make a proposal; that has to go through two levels of government before it becomes a law. It may not make it.

    That said, it appears to be specific in scope to child porn and terrorism.

  • joepie91joepie91 Member, Patron Provider

    @qenox said: Not quite, plus the closest penalty (related to refusal of a government order) is at 3 months; knowing Dutch law I'd say "much more severe" works out to 6 months (apparently refusal of the encryption keys would be "more severe" in the eyes of the law).

    Which means it will make encryption scary for everyone that isn't doing something wrong, and not giving up an encryption key will be laughable for anyone that is doing something wrong. Doesn't look like the desired result. At least, not what most people would desire.

    @qenox said: You can give them a password.

    Yes, until a method is found to identify a hidden volume.

    @qenox said: Regardless of that, from other news sources it seems they need to be able to reasonably build a case without the encrypted data, before they can even get the required authorization to ask for the keys.

    Of course, and we all know how careful the Dutch government is in giving out warrants and such... right?

    @qenox said: No, in early 2013 the minister will make a proposal; that has to go through two levels of government before it becomes a law. It may not make it.

    Knowing the Netherlands - and I mean both the political climate and the people living here - it's very likely to pass. For the past few years, many absolutely horrible laws have passed without as much as a squeak from anyone. Dutch people are exceptionally good at pretending there is no problem, because they don't like having to deal with the consequences.

    @qenox said: That said, it appears to be specific in scope to child porn and terrorism.

    So it's "specific" in scope to one thing that makes everyones mind go into an irrationality lock, and one thing that is so broad and undefined it can mean anything anti-government. What could possibly go wrong?

  • Nick_ANick_A Member, Top Host, Host Rep

    @Maounique said: Torture, be it physical of psychological could be applied and "confessions" will be admissible, after all, it is allowed in Iran and Israel, why wouldnt christians do the same to protect their faith ?

    Would you please rephrase whatever point you're trying to make?

  • @qenox said: That said, it appears to be specific in scope to child porn and terrorism.

    And what is the law on self-incrimination there? Is it a protected right as in the US? If so, even if it manages to pass, will be tossed upon review of the courts.

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
    edited November 2012

    @Nick_A His point is that he hates Christians. I know, it's odd that LET is his venue of choice.

  • Nick_ANick_A Member, Top Host, Host Rep

    @jarland said: @Nick_A His point is that he hates Christians.

    I certainly read a negative connotation in there but I don't understand where he's connecting Iranian torture to Christians protecting their faith.

  • @Maounique said: why wouldnt christians do the same to protect their faith ?

    God ain't real, that's why.

  • @miTgiB said: And what is the law on self-incrimination there?

    Yes, hence the reason why any decent lawyer would be able to make mince meat out of that proposed law...

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    Whether decryption can be forced is wending its way through various US cases even as we speak...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_States

  • joepie91joepie91 Member, Patron Provider

    @miTgiB said: And what is the law on self-incrimination there? Is it a protected right as in the US? If so, even if it manages to pass, will be tossed upon review of the courts.

    It is, yes. The problem is that this wouldn't be the first time a law is pushed anyway, regardless of what our constitution says (yes, we do have one).

  • @joepie91 said:
    Which means it will make encryption scary for everyone that isn't doing something wrong, and not giving up an encryption key will be laughable for anyone that is doing something wrong. Doesn't look like the desired result. At least, not what most people would desire.

    Those who use encryption are not your average users; those who do use, e.g. truecrypt, have some idea of what it entails and the status, etc.

    You missed the point though where they have to be able to make a reasonable case without the encrypted data. Ie. they already, legally, know you are breaking the law; they are looking for more details.

    I'm not arguing for the proposal, but the sky isn't falling either.

    Yes, until a method is found to identify a hidden volume.

    Read the link, it's highly unlikely; that's the key point to plausible deniability.

    Of course, and we all know how careful the Dutch government is in giving out warrants and such... right?

    If they can already build a case without it, then does that not mean it passed some independent measure? (of course it does).

    Knowing the Netherlands - and I mean both the political climate and the people living here - it's very likely to pass. For the past few years, many absolutely horrible laws have passed without as much as a squeak from anyone. Dutch people are exceptionally good at pretending there is no problem, because they don't like having to deal with the consequences.

    Don't look at the Netherlands in a vacuum though; similar laws have passed elsewhere. Besides, bad laws get passed all the time, there's a process to repeal them.

    So it's "specific" in scope to one thing that makes everyones mind go into an irrationality lock, and one thing that is so broad and undefined it can mean anything anti-government. What could possibly go wrong?

    Again, the key point is that they have to be able to legally proof you broke the law before they can even request access.

    Again, the sky isn't falling; it's not a law yet. Nothing wrong with being aware, but it's not the end of the world and I doubt it will pass.

    That said, what's worse in my opinion is what's happening outside of proper controls, e.g. the dutch electronic patient files are being developed by a US company. Why's that a problem you ask? US corporations are subject to US law... which means the patriot act, which just means you gave permission for US government entities to access those files without notification.

    Is it going to happen? Perhaps.

  • mpkossenmpkossen Member
    edited November 2012

    @miTgiB said: And what is the law on self-incrimination there? Is it a protected right as in the US? If so, even if it manages to pass, will be tossed upon review of the courts.

    It hasn't passed yet and probably won't, since it conflicts with the right to protect yourself against self-incrimination. That is a protected right here, just as in the US. It's probably just a political move to gain popularity. Opstelten's party lost a lost of support after last elections.

    @joepie91 said: @qenox said: No, in early 2013 the minister will make a proposal; that has to go through two levels of government before it becomes a law. It may not make it.

    Knowing the Netherlands - and I mean both the political climate and the people living here - it's very likely to pass. For the past few years, many absolutely horrible laws have passed without as much as a squeak from anyone. Dutch people are exceptionally good at pretending there is no problem, because they don't like having to deal with the consequences.

    The current government (the majority of "The Second Chamber") doesn't have a majority in the upper level ("The First Chamber"), so it's always tricky.

Sign In or Register to comment.