That is longstanding, the US and the UK both have been writing laws broadly enough for them to take down anyone for them, or at least charge, we all just trust it won’t be abused, but as we’ve seen with the uk and their bad faith terror designations, that trust is misplaced, and the mask is coming off society. They aren’t pretending anymore, and cynically think “democracy” such as it is, is already dead in all but name, it’s only the citizenry that doesn’t know it yet, and or is contesting it.
Your explanation assumes that scope and scale are part of the definition which it is not.
If you keep zooming in or zooming out the definition of E2E keeps changing under your statement.
If the only knowledge a system has is between a sender and a receiver (Which satisfies even your definition of “intended recipient”) then TLS is E2E encrypted.
Yes the technical term has evolved but did the term evolve in the legislation definition of it?
If not, then the technically correct usage doesn’t matter which is a point I’ve made in another comment as well.
And in my previous comment, I am pointing out the logical inconsistencies. Not that I agree or disagree with the technical terminology. You seem to be conflating a logical explanation/call-out of logic holes for my opinion, which it is not
Do they strictly define end to end encryption in this bill?
If not, then yes, TLS is “end to end” as the sender encrypts the message, and the receiver decrypts it. Each “end” to each “end” is encrypted, satisfying the semantics of the term.
So literally everyone in the UK using any website that uses TLS is now a hostile actor?
Essentially everyone’s a criminal which is a huge boon for the government. They can now get rid of anyone they want at any time, legally.
That’s what the governments in 1984 could do as well.
That is longstanding, the US and the UK both have been writing laws broadly enough for them to take down anyone for them, or at least charge, we all just trust it won’t be abused, but as we’ve seen with the uk and their bad faith terror designations, that trust is misplaced, and the mask is coming off society. They aren’t pretending anymore, and cynically think “democracy” such as it is, is already dead in all but name, it’s only the citizenry that doesn’t know it yet, and or is contesting it.
TLS is not typically considered end-to-end encryption. It’s transport encryption.
I don’t get it. E2ee is about encryption in transit not encryption at rest. TLS sounds exactly like e2ee
E2E is about the sender encrypting, and only the intended receiver decrypting, with nothing in the middle able to read the data.
TLS is not designed for that, as the server you connect to is not necessarily the intended receiver, yet it can see everything.
With E2E, you can send data to a server, which is not the intended receiver, and it won’t be able to read it.
Your explanation assumes that scope and scale are part of the definition which it is not.
If you keep zooming in or zooming out the definition of E2E keeps changing under your statement.
If the only knowledge a system has is between a sender and a receiver (Which satisfies even your definition of “intended recipient”) then TLS is E2E encrypted.
The definition of E2EE has evolved since the concept surfaced. You seem to be stuck with the original meaning.
TLS does not fit the modern definition.
Yes the technical term has evolved but did the term evolve in the legislation definition of it?
If not, then the technically correct usage doesn’t matter which is a point I’ve made in another comment as well.
And in my previous comment, I am pointing out the logical inconsistencies. Not that I agree or disagree with the technical terminology. You seem to be conflating a logical explanation/call-out of logic holes for my opinion, which it is not
Do they strictly define end to end encryption in this bill?
If not, then yes, TLS is “end to end” as the sender encrypts the message, and the receiver decrypts it. Each “end” to each “end” is encrypted, satisfying the semantics of the term.