519
EU Article 45 requires that browsers trust certificate authorities appointed by governments (www.eff.org)
submitted 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
109 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

EU Article 45 requires that browsers trust certificate authorities appointed by governments::The EU is poised to pass a sweeping new regulation, eIDAS 2.0. Buried deep in the text is Article 45, which returns us to the dark ages of 2011, when certificate authorities (CAs) could collaborate with governments to spy on encrypted traffic—and get away with it. Article 45 forbids browsers from...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Am thinking this looks like a nightmare but their intentions are actually different. However giving any kind of power to government is almost universally bad idea since it's guaranteed to be abused, no matter the initial reason it was added.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    There's literally zero reason for this that isn't shady.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I can actually think of more reasons that it's a legitimate request than a shady one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Such as?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Well, like I wrote in other comment of mine. Governments here issue personal certificates signed by government ones. These personal certificates can then be used to digitally sign documents and tax reports. It can be used to log into government web sites and many similar uses. These certificates that EU says browsers have to accept are the same ones everyone already uses for biometric passports. If browser accepted these root certificates, then things would be significantly easier to support. No software installation required.

    People seem to think this will be used for nefarious cases, but in reality people just install government issued software without thinking. Well, any software without thinking. During that installation you can already add certificate to browser and whole OS. It's just easier and better supported if they go through public way instead of having to support multiple OS installations and similar issues.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah that argument holds zero water. Forcing browsers to trust these roots means not only pre-trusting them, but disallowing removal of trust. This is completely intended for surveillance purposes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Removal of trust happened many times in the past. And like I said, it's not changing anything other than making things easier. You can still add certificates to the browser trusted list if you have access to the person's computer, which when you install any software you do. Perhaps the best middle ground would be to add certificates but make them conditional that is to say ask the user what they want to do and offer multiple options. Trust for this domain only, trust always, just this time, don't trust.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    The current text of Article 45 requires that browsers trust CAs appointed by governments

    Tell me you didn't read the article without telling me you didn't read the article. You can keep shilling for government surveillance if you want, but I'm done listening.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Am not shilling, am merely pointing out there are easier ways to spy on people without putting it through legal channels.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    And another pointless argument. "They could spy on you easier means they're not."

    I know I said I was done, but good lord. I can't tell if you are trying to troll or you're completely devoid of logic or reason.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Okay, so you officially refuse to think and just want to wear a tinfoil hat. Good luck with that. Leave the rest of us out of it. Seeing conspiracy theories everywhere and then go online to argue and paying for bills pretty much negates everything you say.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent