What's App and others, encryption

[Leekbrookgull]

Reading the news there are calls for messaging services such as What's App to disclose the contents of certain messages. Has it become time for the security services to have access to such messages maybe it's hype along smoke and mirrors from HM Government ?

 

[drew]

Ideal scenario is that they do have access but it's kept secret.

 

[albionfan37]

I'd be surprised if they couldn't already access that kind of thing already

 

[beorhthelm]

you cant do "encryption that can be turned off when we feel like it". either you have secure encrypted communication or you have insecure communication. as its a foreign company, HM Government has zero say over their encryption, unless they ban it.

 

[BBassic]

Reading the news there are calls for messaging services such as What's App to disclose the contents of certain messages. Has it become time for the security services to have access to such messages maybe it's hype along smoke and mirrors from HM Government ?

That's the key part of the debate. Who decides, and under what circumstances, the sorts of messages that can be viewed by the intelligence services? Messages sent by anyone with dark skin and a beard? Or all messages sent by former convicts? Or any messages sent by anyone who's been nicked for possession of small amounts of class A's?

Give the security services that sort of access and "the right circumstances" could become "whenever they want". Of course it's possible they're doing this shit already a la the CIA or the NSA.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I have no issue with them having access, not sure they will find messages about me cursing Spurs that interesting though

 

[CheeseRolls]

If I was to give a valley review I would sound about as convincing, knowledgeable and comfortable as Amber Rudd does talking about encryption.

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

 

[Bakero]

If I was to give a valley review I would sound about as convincing, knowledgeable and comfortable as Amber Rudd does talking about encryption.

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

Valley?

 

[CHAPPERS]

Utterly ridiculous.

She'll want to ban private converstaion soon.

''You there, stop whispering''

 

[beorhthelm]

Utterly ridiculous.

She'll want to ban private converstaion soon.

''You there, stop whispering''

to be fair she doesn't want this, its the security services. the Home Secretary is just a front and the same calls come from who ever is in that office. exactly the same conversation is happening abroad with their various ministers and officials asking for silicon valley to break security when it suits them.

 

[BensGrandad]

If you have nothing to hide why object to it. If full encryption was banned so that anybody could read it as per facebook comments etc a few husbands and wives wouldnt be happy.

 

[AmexRuislip]

I'm guessing most WhatsApp users, like myself, just use the app, because it's free for most to send images, videos, and phone and video calls.
If you have nothing to hide, then there's no problem.
The encryption thingy is just gimmicky really. IMO
Unless you're all budding secret agents!

 

[BBassic]

If you have nothing to hide why object to it. If full encryption was banned so that anybody could read it as per facebook comments etc a few husbands and wives wouldnt be happy.

This essay says everything I would need to about the 'nothing to hide' argument and far more eloquently than I could put it:

https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/05/the_eternal_value_of.html

 

[Birdie Boy]

you cant do "encryption that can be turned off when we feel like it". either you have secure encrypted communication or you have insecure communication. as its a foreign company, HM Government has zero say over their encryption, unless they ban it.

When you type a message into WhatsApp, it is unencrypted. When you send the message it is encrypted. When the person receives the message it is unencrypted. The WhatsApp servers will also get a copy that can be unencrypted.
It is only the bit in the middle, ie the internet, that is encrypted.

Sent from my XT1072 using Tapatalk

 

[SK1NT]

It is either encrypted or not. Can't allow back door access otherwise this is opening a whole can of worms for other encrypted apps banking etc.

Rudd is utterly misinformed.

1984 is becoming more and more real everyday

 

[halbpro]

When you type a message into WhatsApp, it is unencrypted. When you send the message it is encrypted. When the person receives the message it is unencrypted. The WhatsApp servers will also get a copy that can be unencrypted.
It is only the bit in the middle, ie the internet, that is encrypted.

Sent from my XT1072 using Tapatalk

As far as I know WhatsApp is using end-to-end encryption, meaning they don't get a version they can decrypt. That's the point of end-to-end encryption, and why it causes security services such a headache.

 

[beorhthelm]

When you type a message into WhatsApp, it is unencrypted. When you send the message it is encrypted. When the person receives the message it is unencrypted. The WhatsApp servers will also get a copy that can be unencrypted.
It is only the bit in the middle, ie the internet, that is encrypted.

its using end to end encryption. your client encrypts before its sent to the Whatsapp servers. thats what they have a problem with, they cannot intercept the message, unless they have physical access to your client/device (and even then it can be tricky).

 

[father_and_son]

This is ridiculous and we are sleepwalking into a nightmare scenario.

The old BS about "if you don't do anything illegal you have nothing to worry about" is the scariest part.

It isn't what is illegal NOW, or what THIS government will do or even the NEXT government. But history shows time and again that governments CANNOT be trusted with this sort of power because it WILL be abused by someone, somewhere further down the line.

Have we learned nothing from history and will allow the government to have access to everything in the name of "security"?


What if some future government, sometime in the future, decide that supporting a football team is a subversive act that needs to be stamped out. Everyone who has ever posted on NSC suddenly and retrospectively becomes a criminal and loses their rights, their freedom or even their lives. If everyone happily allows the government to see everything we do now, how do we protect ourselves from abuses in the future?

I can understand the desire to stop terrorist incidents before they happen but the trade off just isn't worth it!

 

[father_and_son]

If you have nothing to hide why object to it. If full encryption was banned so that anybody could read it as per facebook comments etc a few husbands and wives wouldnt be happy.

I'm guessing most WhatsApp users, like myself, just use the app, because it's free for most to send images, videos, and phone and video calls.
If you have nothing to hide, then there's no problem.
The encryption thingy is just gimmicky really. IMO
Unless you're all budding secret agents!

Two of the most naive comments possible in the debate.
I'm sure that millions of people would rather some fact about themselves, that wasn't illegal at that time they expressed it, wish that the state didn't know about it, hadn't declared it to be retrospectively illegal and hadn't had them executed for it.

 

[Rugrat]

This is ridiculous and we are sleepwalking into a nightmare scenario.

The old BS about "if you don't do anything illegal you have nothing to worry about" is the scariest part.

It isn't what is illegal NOW, or what THIS government will do or even the NEXT government. But history shows time and again that governments CANNOT be trusted with this sort of power because it WILL be abused by someone, somewhere further down the line.

Have we learned nothing from history and will allow the government to have access to everything in the name of "security"?


What if some future government, sometime in the future, decide that supporting a football team is a subversive act that needs to be stamped out. Everyone who has ever posted on NSC suddenly and retrospectively becomes a criminal and loses their rights, their freedom or even their lives. If everyone happily allows the government to see everything we do now, how do we protect ourselves from abuses in the future?

I can understand the desire to stop terrorist incidents before they happen but the trade off just isn't worth it!

I'm sorry but the example of supporting a football team as ever being subversive is ridiculous. Nor am I sure what historical events can be evidenced to suggest that providing a level of access under condition led to some abusive governemental behaviour.

On the other hand I am sure there are plenty of historical acts that could have been avoided or the perpetrators brough to justice if such access were possible