The European Court of Human Rights takes a stand against the possible introduction of backdoors into encrypted messaging services.
A recent judgment by the European Court of Human Rights has established that the introduction of backdoors in end-to-end encrypted messaging services (E2EE), such as Telegram and Signal, could jeopardize freedom of expression and potentially expose users to security risks such as hacking, identity theft, and unlimited state surveillance.
The Anton Podchasov case
On February 13th, the European Court ruled in favor of Anton Podchasov, a Russian citizen who in 2018 sued his government following a request to decrypt messages sent via Telegram’s “secret chat” feature. According to Podchasov, the government’s requirement for Telegram to decrypt messages would introduce the possibility of decrypting all user communications on the platform. He argued that this measure would violate the regulations outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Russian messaging app opposed this requirement, stating that it would undermine the security of the entire platform, making all users’ communications vulnerable.
After several appeals and a negative ruling from the Russian Supreme Court, Podchasov’s case was examined by the European Court of Human Rights. The verdict stated that the Russian government had violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which asserts that “everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.”
The Court declared that despite the potential use of end-to-end messaging services by criminals, the introduction of backdoors in such systems would jeopardize the security of ordinary users, infringing upon their rights to freedom of expression and compromising the European Convention on Human Rights.
The implications of backdoors
According to the same Court, backdoors “would have indiscriminate effects on all users”, including those who do not pose a threat to governments, and could open the door to “daily, general, and indiscriminate surveillance of personal digital communications”.
The Court emphasized that there are alternative methods for monitoring encrypted communications that would not require the implementation of a backdoor, such as direct access to the devices used for messaging exchanges.
