Ireland Wants To Give Its Cops Spyware, Ability To Crack Encrypted Messages (theregister.com)
- Reference: 0180633396
- News link: https://it.slashdot.org/story/26/01/21/1639200/ireland-wants-to-give-its-cops-spyware-ability-to-crack-encrypted-messages
- Source link: https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/21/ireland_wants_to_give_police/
> The Communications (Interception and Lawful Access) Bill is being framed as a replacement for the current legislation that governs digital communication interception. The Department of Justice, Home Affairs, and Migration said in an announcement this week the existing Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993 "predates the telecoms revolution of the last 20 years."
>
> As well as updating laws passed more than two decades ago, the government was keen to emphasize that a key ambition for the bill is to empower law enforcement to intercept of all forms of communications. The Bill will bring communications from IoT devices, email services, and electronic messaging platforms into scope, "whether encrypted or not."
>
> In a similar way to how certain other governments want to compel encrypted messaging services to unscramble packets of interest, Ireland's announcement also failed to explain exactly how it plans to do this. However, it promised to implement a robust legal framework, alongside all necessary privacy and security safeguards, if these proposals do ultimately become law. It also vowed to establish structures to ensure "the maximum possible degree of technical cooperation between state agencies and communication service providers."/i
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/21/ireland_wants_to_give_police/
Yes, that will go well (Score:3)
Obviously some surveillance fascists at work. These people need to be closely monitored and strictly limited in what they can do, or everything goes to hell.
An Taoiseach (Score:3)
It'll just take a low-level cyber-criminal to send An Taoiseach a copy of all his messages to the members of the DÃil or members of his family, and it'll be undone soon enough. Maybe.
Well this won't be misused regularly (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh wait - it most certainly will. Just look at the so-called USA PATRIOT Act or Flock Safety cameras or Palantir or any of a dozen other crappy things.
I get it, we want to catch criminals. However some people who should be subject to having that stuff on their communications devices FULL TIME should be every person with a wealth over 10 times the low median average, every government official, and every member of the police.
That way when it's misused, or has data stolen, that data is front and center.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's pretty much a poison pill. Can you imagine what Thiel / Musk / Karp would say if their data was at risk?
How about any of the police demanding it, or the politicians looking to implement, this stuff?
Considering human nature, my guess is you'll see them flee the proposal. Heck getting cops to wear bodycams is a process. We still need to make obscuring, or muting, bodycams a Class B felony. They can edit / redact information before release IF it's considered something that should be redacted.
That's really laughable (Score:4, Informative)
On the one hand European governments enforce extremely strict laws about privacy. On the other, they give themselves the ability to steal any kind of communication they want. Security safeguards? Are they all doing drugs? What stops a cop (who already has access) from using it illegally in a stealthy way? Who stops him from selling that information, or worst, using it for blackmailing?
Re: (Score:2)
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Never before have we been able to employ mass surveillance at this scale, and that goes both ways. Maybe an incorruptible, all-seeing AI will keep the police in check.
If the government can read your communications (Score:4, Informative)
Everyone can read your communications
Re: (Score:2)
Then everybody, OK white hackers, will be able to read all the governments communications. Well, that should be interesting :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Should have read the preview more carefully. I meant to say "white hat hackers". Sorry if I riled anyone.
Damn! (Score:2)
Another county to cross off from my "country I'd consider moving to" (after the USA and UK).
All that's left is Canada, and it's cold :(
Governments should be afraid of their people. (Score:2)
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
Re: (Score:2)
How many such countries are there?
Safeguards are the important thing (Score:2)
Look, police obviously need the capability to do things like enter private property and decode information found on the phones of drug dealers.
The key however is always the safe guards. And it is NOT that hard to understand how to implement the safe guards:
1) If the creepy guy down the street can be charged with a crime for doing it, the police should HAVE to get a warrant/subpoena/approval from a judge to do it. Why? Because some cops are/become the creepy guy down the street. They have girlfriends and o
Incompatible requirements (Score:5, Insightful)
The "bill is to empower law enforcement to intercept of all forms of communications," and it also, "promised to implement ... necessary privacy and security safeguards."
Those goals are incompatible, full stop.
Re: (Score:3)
> Those goals are incompatible, full stop.
They are. But too many people are incapable of seeing that and hence pushing this direct lie works. It also nicely illustrates the moral level the people behind this effort operate on.
Re: (Score:1)
Not completely. There are specific things which is incompatible - any law which controls the software that you install on your device when you are innocent; any law which allows them to carry out mass surveillence and keeping data of people who are not under examination. From the article I can't see that these things are being done.
Things which give them permission to hack with a warrant are reasonable. Firstly, it's something that can be measured because the warrants are recorded. Secondly, it can be disco
Re: (Score:3)
> Things which give them permission to hack with a warrant are reasonable.
That's not what this is about. This is about giving them the ability to "intercept of all forms of communications."
If they are doing so, then "necessary privacy and security safeguards" have been violated.
The means of which does not matter. For example, they could have all end to end encrypted chats between 2 parties behave like a group chat with 3 parties, and they get one of those keys and the data.
Re: (Score:2)
there are two ways of doing that
1) require all software to support three party chats with an extra party added - forcing signal, for example, to either leave the country or compromise it's system
2) have a spyware / malware ("policeware") system that installs extra software on the end terminal, grab the chat before it's encrypted and send it off to the police
the difference is that 1) means that everyone is burdened by making the software that they use is insecure.
On the other hand, 2) only needs to apply to
Re: (Score:2)
"Things which give them permission to hack with a warrant are reasonable."
Imagine thinking privacy doesn't matter and mission creep isn't guaranteed here. [1]https://www.wordnik.com/words/... [wordnik.com]
[1] https://www.wordnik.com/words/mission%20creep
Re: (Score:1)
guvf vf cbfghevat naq gurngre, iveghr fvtanyvat sbe pbafgvghragf, erny-jbeyq erfhygf ner abg gur tbny naq abg bs pbaprea