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).

  • 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.