The Joint Declaration was agreed upon at an informal meeting of the European Chiefs of Police in London hosted by the National Crime Agency on 18 April.

Police Chiefs of all EU Member States and Schengen Associated Countries were invited, alongside Europol’s Executive Director.

Here is the declaration (pdf).

  • Mikina@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    8 months ago

    There’s not much they can do about PGP, though. Sure, encrypting stuff manually can get a little bit annoying, but nothing a quick browset extension wouldn’t fix.

    The moat difficult part will ve convincing your friends to use it, and actually sharing keys, but if you really need to hide what you’re talking about, it’s not like stopping a e2e rollout will help in amy capacity. Quite the contrary - people who they want to target with this will only start to be even more carefull, reaulting in them loosing access even to those backdoored privacy messengers they already probably have and criminals rely on.

      • Mikina@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 months ago

        Once you have a tool that uses pgp with keys you provide, and encrypts messages in normal chats, changing the actuall message format would probably be easy, so there’s plenty of room for adittional steganography. Images would make for a perfect cover, with something like last-bit steganography.

        But, I hope it won’t come to that.

        • trollercoaster@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          They will have tools to scan for steganography. I bet Palantir or some other dodgy tech bro company is more than happy to sell something like that to them. And with PGP’s not only strong encryption, but just as strong authentication, they’ll have no problem whatsoever proving that it was you who sent those illegal encrypted messages.

          • Mikina@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            That’s true. I guess that in this case, your best bet is (assuming you don’t have something so illegal to hide, that they do want to expend large amount of resources on you) to just go security by obscurity, and have some kind of obscure custom steganography that’s not widely used.

            And for PGP - I though that there’s a difference between signing and encrypting a message, and when you only encrypt and don’t sign, they can’t attribute the message to you, assuming they don’t have your private key or the original plaintext? Or is it possible to attribute a encrypted message using only public key and cyphertext?

            • trollercoaster@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Or is it possible to attribute a encrypted message using only public key and cyphertext?

              I’m not entirely sure, and was more thinking of the standard application of PGP where encryption and signing go hand in hand.