WS 5: Crypto Wars 3.0 – can privacy, security and encryption co-exist?
Rapporteur: Boris Ohanyan, Geneva Internet Platform
- Trust in encrypted communication is necessary in a democratic society, but this trust will be undermined by simple access of authorities to encrypted messages. This would be the end of free communication: it will not prevent criminals from encrypting their communication in an unbreakable way, but it will weaken everybody’s encryption. Solution thus cannot be worse than the problem.
- The focus should shift from generic regulations on allowing law enforcement to break encryption to open discussions with law enforcement agencies on the requirements for when and how to do so.
- False framings and false dichotomies around encryption, privacy, and security should be avoided. Terms and concepts need to be better specified to avoid misunderstanding and inconsistency around their use.
- Better multistakeholder engagement to consider the consequences of technological advances is necessary. At the EU level, concrete actions need to be taken to ensure formal structures for such engagement and to overcome the existing divide of frameworks and scattered discussions and debates.
Recent Comments on this Site
5th July 2022 at 5:37 pm
Paragraph 2: Mentioning standardisation bodies in one line with industry deployment seems like a mix-up/mistake.
See in context
5th July 2022 at 5:33 pm
Paragraph 2: It is unclear what the actual message is.
See in context
5th July 2022 at 5:32 pm
Paragraph 1: It is unclear what the actual message is.
See in context
5th July 2022 at 5:30 pm
Here, ‘relentless testing’ is not necessarily connected to consumers but to consumer organisations’ testing programmes and to societal organisation of responsible disclosure.
Also, it is unclear what procurement has got to do with lower-level standard bodies (who are they?).
See in context
5th July 2022 at 5:12 pm
The following should be included: “The multi stakeholder involvement in the standards development process is needed, as is the value of a collaborative process to address identified problems and or issues, including the engagement of policymakers in the process so they gain a better understanding of what standards exist and how they are intended to be applied. Governments are critical to encourage development, adoption and standards implementation rather than mandate or regulate solutions.”
See in context
5th July 2022 at 5:11 pm
Here the messaging does not capture the focus of the discussion on the need to implement standards once they have been finalized. That an implementation framework is important to address national cybersecurity issues and at the international level cooperation is important for effective implementation.
See in context
5th July 2022 at 5:02 pm
The following should be included:
The multi stakeholder involvement in standards development process is needed, as is the value of a collaborative process to address identified problems and or issues, including the engagement of policymakers in the process so they gain a better understanding of what standards exist and how they are intended to be applied. Governments are critical to encourage development, adoption and standards implementation rather than mandate or regulate solutions.
See in context
5th July 2022 at 5:00 pm
The multi stakeholder involvement in the standards development processis crucial, as is the value of a collaborative process to address identified problems and or issues, including the engagement of policymakers in the process so they gain a better understanding of what standards exist and how they are intended to be applied. Governments are critical to encourage development, adoption and standards implementation rather than mandate or regulate solutions.
See in context
2nd July 2022 at 10:46 pm
Alternative wording:
The European vision of digital sovereignty could (should?) be used to increase competition and foster economic growth for the EU and its member states.
See in context
2nd July 2022 at 10:44 pm
comment on paragraph I don’t see this paragraph related to the Digital Sovereignty discussions. I suggest deleting it.
See in context