this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2025
554 points (99.1% liked)

Microblog Memes

9317 readers
2612 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

article

toot

easily contact your MEP: https://fightchatcontrol.eu/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 21 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children)

Ok how do they plan to enforce that?

By banning HTTPS at the ISP level?

Edit: and then how do they enforce GPDR? Because you better believe everyone and their mother is going to snoop on every communication made.

[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Blocking HTTPS would be frighteningly hilarious. My employer is one of thousands of websites that utilizes HSTS, which tells web browsers to use HTTPS. Our implementation of HSTS, like lots of banks etc. is also listed with HSTSpreload, which means browsers like chrome will only ever use HTTPS with our site.

[–] tgxn@lemmy.tgxn.net 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

What if they just do MITM with a Trusted root? Does HSTS provide a method to do cert pinning?

[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

HSTS just enforces HTTPS over HTTP.

I seriously doubt Chrome or Firefox would ever be coerced into trusting a cert like that. If they did then you would see a very rapid shift away from those browsers to one or more of the open source alternatives.

And any CA that issued such a cert that allowed for wholesale MITM access like that would be blacklisted by all the browsers very quickly as well. That would put the CA out of business very quickly.

[–] Zwiebel@feddit.org 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

By forcing Whatsapp Signal etc to implement backdoors

[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 5 points 3 weeks ago

Signal wouldn't, or if it did, it would be labeled as such as an insecure fork for EU conpliance only and make that fork stale immediately.

[–] derpgon@programming.dev 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Don't need to ban encryption, just control top level certificate authorities and have access to private keys.

I'd like to see them try to get mine lol.

[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 1 points 3 weeks ago

And any CA doing so would lose their certificate authority status pretty damn quickly.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

By banning HTTPS at the ISP level?

I think you might not be aware of it but big institutions like governments and such can basically already circumvent HTTPS encryption by supplying fake root certificates and forcing the ISP to redirect traffic through their own servers.

That is why End-to-End encryption is such a big deal. Because it cannot be circumvented by the government alone. If done right (proper key exchange), it cannot be broken by anyone but the legitimate recipients. The way WhatsApp does it today, Meta could technically break it too, though i'm not sure whether they do.

[–] Jenseitsjens@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That's not necessarily very easy. These certs would have to show up in public certificate transparancy logs for most browsers to accept them. If this happens on a government scale it would surely get noticed, though the question remains what you're left to do if the government forces it anyways...

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_Transparency section "Mandatory certificate transparency"

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

not necessarily very easy

admittedly, but i still assume that the CIA could do it if it tried.

edit: thanks for the link though, this seems very interesting :D