Hungarian government briefly proposes to criminalize encrypted services

This appears to be a rather sensationalist headline for a move that is admittedly boneheaded on Orbán&#x27;s part. To ensure the state&#x27;s ability to surveil, the government had a plan to enforce the inclusion of backdoors.<p>However, it appears that after some consultation with people that had a clue - of which Hungary actually has a large number - the government has decided that would be a Bad Idea and has tabled the plans.<p>Source: Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;tasz.hu&#x2F;en&#x2F;news&#x2F;hungarian-government-plans-enforce-encryption-backdoors" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;tasz.hu&#x2F;en&#x2F;news&#x2F;hungarian-government-plans-enforce-en...</a>).<p>This is actually very typical of Fidesz (Orbán Viktor&#x27;s ruling party). They <i>love</i> making abrupt and sweeping changes to the law, then leaving everybody else to pick up the pieces. Occasionally, cooler heads prevail before the law is actually broken, but normally there&#x27;s just a mess.

I&#x27;m Hungarian. This bullshit is actively being reverted.<p>Originally there was a plan to put encryption app users in jail for up to two years.<p>But not all communication apps would be treated equal: mainstream applications already using encryption, such as Skype or Viber, would be perfectly okay. Only using those applications specifically written to encrypt communication, primarily CryptTalk, would have been punishable.<p>Edit: Our speculation is that this is the same strategy seen with the internet tax. Spreading FUD and stealing state wealth while everybody runs in circles.<p>Edit 2: They did ban using CryptTalk and similar products (all communication services with encryption as their main selling point). No information on how they plan to enforce this decision: their only tool is to ask mobile app stores nicely to hide these apps from plain sight.

Ironically, parliament awarded CryptTalk an innovation award last week.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;budapestbeacon.com&#x2F;economics&#x2F;crypttalk-given-innovation-award-parliament-now-govt-plans-ban-app&#x2F;33507" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;budapestbeacon.com&#x2F;economics&#x2F;crypttalk-given-innovati...</a>

There is a now a growing awareness of the unhealthy level of obsession governments have about citizens communications.<p>This is in effect the same as the Burr-Feinstein encryption bill, one penalizes users, the other service providers. The bottom line is there is a lot of posturing about privacy but little commitment. All governments without exception are obsessed with your communications and data. It is unsettling and creepy.<p>I really think some users will have to take &#x27;secure communications&#x27; into their own hands depending on the level of need and address metadata exposures. If its remotely life threatening or impacting it would be foolish to depend on any service provider or technology.<p>You can&#x27;t win an encryption &#x27;arms race&#x27; against state level actors with near endless resources, capabilities and the will. And the law and willingness to arm twist service providers and projects with secret courts, orders, intimidation, harassment.<p>One can&#x27;t help feeling current technologies however committed fall way short and are only lulling us into a false sense of privacy and complacency. A solution that does not acknowledge a state actors sheer range of capabilities and clearly articulate how it is addressed is not a solution. Perhaps something that completely randomizes metadata and makes it too expensive to break per user.

This is what happens when someone that do not know anything about internet architecture tries to make something illegal. Good luck in enforcing this law.

So, does this make (for example) visiting a website over HTTPS illegal? Or does it compel Hungarian ISPs to MITM their customers? It seems to imply one in one sentence, then the other in the next.

If you want to get technical, ASCII is a single-alphabet substitution cipher.<p>Remember, lawyers have tried asserting that copying to RAM is copyright infringement.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;newmedialaw.proskauer.com&#x2F;2008&#x2F;08&#x2F;20&#x2F;ram-copying-an-issue-of-more-than-transitory-duration&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;newmedialaw.proskauer.com&#x2F;2008&#x2F;08&#x2F;20&#x2F;ram-copying-an-i...</a>

I can&#x27;t access the article right now. But I&#x27;m fairly certain that a couple of stupid deputies who don&#x27;t understand anything about technology&#x2F;cryptology want to introduce a law against it and everyone is going ape shit &quot;Hungary want to criminalize the use of encrypted services&quot;.<p>The same thing happens in France from time to time.

I cannot open the page. Can some Hungarian provide context and explanation. A lot could be lost in translation. Or bias.<p>The title suggest that it will run afoul of a thousand EU regulations.<p>But it is hard to be alive in Europe and not run afoul of any EU regulation - but that is another topic.

I would say encryption is somewhat of a red herring. It is the introduction of similar surveillance policy that is quickly becoming widespread, I don&#x27;t even think Hungary is an early adopter here. The sources even citing roughly &#x27;granting powers other governments already have&#x27; and establishing an agency TIBEK with similar access to data (without warrant IIRC) as common 3 letter agencies. They even use the same terrorism&#x2F;ISIS&#x2F;Brussels&#x2F;France reasoning. I guess in the end everyone can pick their surveillance point on the safety - freedom graph.

&gt; <i>anyone caught using encrypted software can be punished by 2 years of prison</i><p>&gt; <i>The providers would be obliged to ensure access to the content of the encrypted messages</i><p>I am not sure if users can be punished. I could only confirm that providers have obligation to provide data under penalty.<p>European countries are pretty benevolent to end users, for example in some it is legal to download copyright protected music and videos for personal use. And providers already have obligation (by EU law) to provide information and archive it for some time.

So.. no HTTPS for them?<p>But the general question is this: would companies rather exit from such country and protect some values, or provide a non-encrypted version of their services to secure their userbase?

Ok, so people in the government realised, that there exist encryption methods, which can not be &quot;decrypted&quot;, and technology makes encryption accessible to everyone.<p>When will they realise, that there is no way to detect, whether a message is encrypted or not-encrypted, and there may be multiple levels of &quot;tunneling&quot;. It is not possible to find out the original form or the source (app) of information.<p>Monitoring online communication is in not any simpler, than monitoring verbal communication between every 2 people.

Stasi called and want their infamy back.

Meanwhile, the Burr-Feinstein draft dropped today and it&#x27;s absolutely horrifying.

Are these governments really spending all day spying on us?

Urban really seems to be on tyrant mode for the pasty ear. Especially when he restricted the media laws and tried to censor opinions about government

Does anyone know if the proposed Hungarian law considers a web browser to be an &quot;application intended for encrypted communication&quot;?

John von Neumman is turning over in his grave!

Pig Latin will be outlawed!