Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Snoopers' Charter Could Mean Trouble For UK Users of Encryption-Capable Apps

Posted by timothy on from the for-the-likes-of-you dept.

An anonymous reader writes with a story at IB Times that speculates instant messaging apps which enable encrypted communications (including Snapchat, Facebook Messenger and iMessage) could be banned in the UK under the so-called Snooper's Charter now under consideration. The extent of the powers that the government would claim under the legislation is not yet clear, but as the linked article says, it "would allow security services like the Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ, and MI5, or Military Intelligence Section 5, to access instant messages sent between people to and from the country," and evidently "would give the government right to ban instant messaging apps that use end-to-end encryption." That might sound outlandish, but reflects a popular and politically safe sentiment: "'In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read? My answer to that question is: "No, we must not,"' [Prime Minister] Cameron said earlier this year following the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris."

3 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. Lets turn this around... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since governments have historically killed more people than any group (terrorist or not), shouldn't the law be that governments shouldn't be allowed to hide any communications from the people?

    Exposing all the cases where government employees are "feathering their own nests" would be a nice side benefit.

  2. They have no intent to ban Whatsapp and others ... by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They know that a ban on Whatsapp would be immensely unpopular and would make millions of people realize how stupid their drive against encryption is.

    Instead, their intent is to force Whatsapp and others to voluntarily hand over the communications of their users, much like Blackberry (reportedly) agreed to do for countries with regressive regimes.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  3. Re:The Charlie H killers were roommates by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "'In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read? My answer to that question is: "No, we must not,"' [Prime Minister] Cameron said earlier this year following the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris."

    Cameron is asking the wrong (or a misleading) question.

    The choices are communications you (GCHQ/MI5/etc) may not be able to decrypt, or communications that anyone may be able decrypt.

    There is no 'secret sauce' method of making communications secure against common threats while simultaneously making them insecure to the government.

    If the government can read the communications, so can any other interested party including, terrorists, foreign intelligence agencies, rival/foreign businesses, journalists, etc etc.

    Including Cameron's own political enemies.

    He may not like it if he gets what he's advocating for.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.