8. December 2020
In November, the Austrian broadcasting network “Österreichischer Rundfunk” sparked a controversial discussion by publishing leaked drafts of the Council of the European Union (“EU Council”) on encryption (please see our blog post). After these drafts had been criticized by several politicians, journalists and NGOs, the EU Council published “Recommendations for a way forward on the topic of encryption” on December 1st, in which it considers it important to carefully balance between protecting fundamental rights with ensuring law enforcement investigative powers.
The EU Council sees a dilemma between the need for strong encryption in order to protect privacy on one hand, and the misuse of encryption by criminal subjects such as terrorists and organized crime on the other hand. They further note:
“We acknowledge this dilemma and are determined to find ways that will not compromise
either one, upholding the principle of security through encryption and security despite
encryption.”
The paper lists several intentions that are supposed to help find solutions to this dilemma.
First, it directly addresses EU institutions, agencies, and member states, asking them to coordinate their efforts in developing technical, legal and operational solutions. Part of this cooperation is supposed to be the joint implementation of standardized high-quality training programs for law enforcement officers that are tailored to the skilled criminal environment. International cooperation, particularly with the initiators of the “International Statement: End-to-End Encryption and Public Safety“, is proclaimed as a further intention.
Next the technology industry, civil society and academic world are acknowledged as important partners with whom EU institutions shall establish a permanent dialogue. The recommendations address internet service providers and social media platforms directly, noting that only with their involvement can the full potential of technical expertise be realized. Europol’s EU Innovation Hub and national research and development teams are named key EU institutions for maintaining this dialogue.
The EU Council concludes that the continuous development of encryption requires regular evaluation and review of technical, operational, and legal solutions.
These recommendations can be seen as a direct response to the discussion that arose in November. The EU Council is attempting to appease critics by emphasizing the value of encryption, while still reiterating the importance of law enforcement efficiency. It remains to be seen how willing the private sector will cooperate with the EU institutions and what measures exactly the EU Council intends to implement. This list of intentions lacks clear guidelines, recommendations or even a clearly formulated goal. Instead, the parties are asked to work together to find solutions that offer the highest level of security while maximizing law enforcement efficiency. In summary, these “recommendations” are more of a statement of intent than implementable recommendations on encryption.
27. November 2020
In the course of November 2020, the Council of the European Union issued several draft versions of a joint declaration with the working title “Security through encryption and security despite encryption”. The drafts were initially intended only for internal purposes, but leaked and first published by the Austrian brodcasting network “Österreichischer Rundfunk” (“ORF”) in an article by journalist Erich Möchel. Since then, the matter has sparked widespread public interest and media attention.
The controversy around the declaration arose when the ORF commentator Möchel presented further information from unknown sources that “compentent authorities” shall be given “exceptional access” to the end-to-end encryption of communications. This would mean that communications service providers like WhatsApp, Signal etc. would be obliged to allow a backdoor and create a general key to encrypted communications which they would deposit with public authorities. From comparing the version of the declaration from 6 November 2020 with the previous version from 21 October 2020, he highlighted that in the previous version it states that additional practical powers shall be given to “law enforcement and judicial authorities”, whereas in the more recent version, the powers shall be given to “competent authorities in the area of security and criminal justice”. He adds that the new broader wording would include European intelligence agencies as well and allow them to undermine end-to-end encryption. Furthermore, he also indicated that plans to restrict end-to-end encyption in Western countries are not new, but originally proposed by the “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance of the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.
As a result of the ORF article, the supposed plans to restrict or ban end-to-end encryption have been widely criticised by Politicians, Journalists, and NGOs stating that any backdoors to end-to-end encryption would render any secure encryption impossible.
However, while it can be verified that the “Five Eyes” propose the creation of general keys to access end-to-end encrypted communications, similar plans for the EU cannot be clearly deduced from the EU Council’s declaration at hand. The declaration itself recognises end-to-end encryption as highly beneficial to protect governments, critical infrastructures, civil society, citizens and industry by ensuring privacy, confidentiality and data integrity of communications and personal data. Moreover, it mentions that EU data protection authorities have identified it as an important tool in light of the Schrems II decision of the CJEU. At the same time, the Council’s declaration illustrates that end-to-end encryption poses large challenges for criminal investigations when gathering evidencein cases of cyber crime, making it at times “practically impossible”. Lastly, the Council calls for an open, unbiased and active discussion with the tech industry, research and academia in order to achieve a better balance between “security through encryption and security despite encryption”.
Möchel’s sources for EU plans to ban end-to-end encryption through general keys remain unknown and unverifiable. Despite general concerns for overarching surveillance powers of governments, the public can only approach the controversy around the EU Council’s declaration with due objectivity and remain observant on whether or how the EU will regulate end-to-end encryption and find the right balance between the privacy rights of European citizens and the public security and criminal justice interests of governments.
10. February 2017
On January 10, the European Commission published a proposal for an ePrivacy Regulation. After the adoption of the General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’), a new ePrivacy Regulation would be the next step in pursuing the European Commission’s Digital Single Market Strategy (‘DSM’).
If adopted, the ePrivacy Regulation will replace both the ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) and the Cookie Directive (2009/136/EC). In contrast to a Directive that has to be implemented into national law by each EU Member State, a Regulation is directly applicable in all Member States. Thus a Regulation would support the harmonisation of the data protection framework.
What’s new?
Since 2009, when the ePrivacy Directive was revised last, important technological and economic developments took place. In order to adapt the legal framework to the reality of electronic communication, the scope of the proposed Regulation is widened to apply to the so called ‘over-the-top’ (‘OTT’) service providers. These OTT providers, such as WhatsApp, Skype or Facebook, run their services over the internet.
By ensuring the privacy of machine-to-machine communication, the Regulation also deals with the Internet of Things and thus seems not only to consider the current situation of electronic communication, but also to prepare for upcoming developments within the information technology sector.
Electronical communications data (metadata as well as content data) cannot be processed without complying with the requirements of the Regulation. Metadata can be processed, if necessary for mandatory quality of service requirements or for billing, calculating interconnection payments, detecting or stopping fraudulent, or abusive use of, or subscription to, electronic communication services.
Content data can be used for the sole purpose of the provision of a specific service to an end-user, if the end-user or end-users concerned have given their consent to the processing of his or her electronic communications content and the provision of that service cannot be fulfilled without the processing of such content or if all end-users concerned have given their consent to the processing of their electronic communications content for one or more specified purposes that cannot be fulfilled by processing information that is made anonymous, and the provider has consulted the supervisory authority.
Regarding the use of cookies, the end-users’ consent is still the basic requirement, except for first party non-privacy intrusive cookies. These cookies can now be used without the consent of the end-user. The proposed Regulation furthermore allows to use browser settings as consent.
In contrast to the draft of the Regulation leaked in December 2016, the official proposal does not contain the commitment to ‘Privacy by default’, which means that software has to be configured so that third parties cannot store information on or use information about a user’s device.
The Commission’s proposal of the Regulation just demands that software must offer the option to prevent third parties from storing information on or using information about a user’s device.
ePrivacy Regulation and GDPR
Both the ePrivacy Regulation and the GDPR are part of the above mentioned ‘DSM’. Several commonalities prove this fact. For instance, the fines in both Regulations will be the same. Furthermore, the EU Data Protection Authorities responsible for the enforcement of the GDPR will also be responsible for the ePrivacy Regulation. This will contribute to the harmonisation of the data protection framework and increase trust in and the security of digital services.
What’s next?
After being considered and agreed by the European Parliament and the Council, the Regulation could be adopted by May 25th, 2018, when the GDPR will come into force. It is to see whether this schedule is practicable, considering how long the debate about the GDPR took.
