Slashdot Mirror
'Real People' Don't Need End-To-End Encryption In Their Messaging Apps, UK Home Secretary Says (bbc.com)
UK home secretary Amber Rudd has called on messaging apps like WhatsApp to ditch end-to-end encryption, arguing that it aids terrorists. From a report: The major technology companies must step up their fight against extremism or face new laws, the home secretary has told the BBC. Amber Rudd said technology companies were not doing enough to beat "the enemy" on the internet. Encryption tools used by messaging apps had become a "problem," she added. Ms Rudd is meeting with representatives from Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and others at a counter-terrorism forum in San Francisco. Tuesday's summit is the first gathering of the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, an organisation set up by the major companies in the wake of recent terror attacks. In a joint statement, the companies taking part said they were co-operating to "substantially disrupt terrorists' ability to use the internet in furthering their causes, while also respecting human rights." In an op-ed, she wrote Tuesday: Real people often prefer ease of use and a multitude of features to perfect, unbreakable security ... Who uses WhatsApp because it is end-to-end encrypted, rather than because it is an incredibly user-friendly and cheap way of staying in touch with friends and family? Companies are constantly making trade-offs between security and 'usability,' and it is here where our experts believe opportunities may lie.
Yes, indeed. What real people need end to end encryption for financial transactions? It's totally okay to allow unknown parties to breach encryption because, you know, REAL PEOPLE!!!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Like the USA, the biggest terrorist organization in the UK is the government
I remain surprised that anti-encryption advocates aren't coached to avoid making the easily countered "good people have nothing to hide" argument, but I suppose it works well enough in the sphere of mass public opinion shaping.
induce terrorism.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
My ability to spy on you is more important than your ability to protect yourself from criminals spying on you.
Real people, lol. Too on the nose.
And I need end to end encryption, for things like my banking info, purchases on the net, and my sexting with age adequate MILFs (I am 43).
And more so, I also WANT end to end encryption on all my comms.
'Nuff said
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
Here in Australia my housemate has lots of friends in the federal and local police. She uses it because she knows otherwise they could just read her messages (even though they aren't meant to). She even had some guy from another government department tell her he could just look her up on the directory if they wanted to
Lots of people need it. It's all good and well when you're above the law but everyone else deserves privacy. It wouldn't surprise me if there have been lots of stalking cases which were caused by no encryption.
Companies like WhatsApp also need it to ensure their employees don't stalk people or can be accused of doing so
Put your money where your mouth is, Mr. High and Mighty.
Publish your DOB, National ID #, Bank Account Info and Home address.
Oh, yes, and publish your entire IM and TXT History, Facebook, Twitter etc. Logins while you're at it.
Because that's what you are suggesting all your Subjects do...
"Companies are constantly making trade-offs between security and 'usability,' and it is here where our experts believe opportunities may lie."
Security and usability are two different things, at different levels of the software. There is no reason, other than lack of programming resources, why an app cannot be created with both a secure back-end and a usable front-end.
We're talking about the UK, where massive child sex rings are swept under the rug because it might make "Asians" look bad. When they say "terrorist" they probably mean "Leave voter"
Tell that to former opposition politicians in Turkey and Venezuela ...
Do you really think something similar couldn't happen in the UK? In twenty years? In forty years?
You may not be around then, but the laws that are made now will.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
Just ban all use outside the military of end to end encryption. Politicians should appreciate the transparency and ease their communications can be monitored.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Once there was a town where all the houses were made of glass.
Then someone invented paint so people didn't see each other naked.
Then the police said we need to get rid of all this paint because seeing everyone naked is a great way to reduce crime.
To wit the only real question was. Is it worth it?
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
I want high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I wanna run through the streets naked with green Jell-O all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal?
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
I'll perform any math I choose with who I want when I want. Thank you very much.
Real Government doesn't need to spy on it's citizens.
If all the popular messengers would be unencrypted, the terrorists would surely find someone who would write them their own encrypted one. This is just one more example of law/idea that makes things bad for the good people and doesn't affect the bad people at all.
Having your own encrypted messenger is illegal now? That will definitely stop people planning terrorist attacks...
They need to stop permitting Saudi inspired Colonialism in London.
I draw a stark difference between Shia, Amadi, Sikh, Hindu, and other refugees who come to Britain in the interest of co-existing in a Pluralistic society in the UK, they should be welcome, they should be met with understanding, and tolerance.
Then there is the attempt by the Saudis to create a puppet State in a section of London. The Sunni Wahabis are creating several such puppet states all over Europe. Its colonialism, and it needs to be stopped. They need to stop the flow of Saudi money, pro-Saudi propaganda, shut down and dismantle Sharia courts, prosecute cases of FGM, and arrest radical gangs.
The Saudis foment racism just as bad as any white Supremacists do in the US. While it has been a largely internal matter for the Saudis, there are Saudis promoting a return of Black African slavery, and female sex slavery. They are actively commiting a Genocide against the Shia Houthis in Yemen. They nearly massacred the Yazitis.
Look, the truth is the war on Terrorism is really the war against Saudi inspired Sunni Wahabi aggression. The Saudis started it, and it won't end until the Saudi regime falls. If we ever want to live in peace and security again, the Saudis have to be stopped.
of your business.
If someone plans a divorce. If someone wants to make a purchase on a house, etc etc. List goes on forever, why? Because information is power and people will use it to prepare and manipulate. It doesn't have to be illegal.
Like what if someone wanted to motivate a lot of people to use their legal rights to vote down leadership they found shitty? Well, if you knew in advance what people were doing, you could accidentally end up on a no fly list and that it was a mistake, and they promise to remove you..but uh..the process is slow and may take the next few months..you know, until the election is over to get you removed.
There's plenty of dirty legal tricks people can do to royally fuck with someone and mess up timing of things. End to end encryption should be required.
What if the government is doing something shady? If they're shady as fuck and let's face it, the information age shows they're still as shady as they have been since the days of monarchs, then they won't suddenly investigate the shit out of you and disrupt your life for reasons of national security that they can't reveal?
God yes they would do it. We all know they do / will / can. They fear encryption because it's hard to know what to lie about and if people are on to your lies if you can't read them talking about it.
If Ms. Rudd thinks end-to-end encryption isn't helping to fight the enemy, I think she's confused about who the enemy is.
She'll need a mirror to find out who.
I take it they are led by Emperor Palpatine.
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
To be honest, I've always suspected that I was fictional.
link
Ms. Rudd should be called out quite clearly for employing such blatant logical fallacy.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
And if she truly believes that there is a trade-off and that "people often prefer ease of use and a multitude of features to perfect, unbreakable security", then that's called a business insight. The next step for her is to create or invest in a company that will produce a messaging app focused on ease of use and features as opposed to encryption. That way her insight is tested on the market and she'll make money if she's right. The next step after a business insight is not legislation.
As an unreal person, I don't know if she is correct. But, as an unreal person, I'll take my end-to-end encryption thanks.
On anther note... Does she realize that terrorists are whispering in the shadows, without encryption, and she is unable to hear them? What ever will she do about that?
The more you tighten your grip, Amber Rudd, the more users will slip through your fingers.
Caps Intended
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
don't need to inspect private communications in order to preserve freedom.
Tell me how secure electronic banking can work with secure transactions?
For individuals,
How about web payments? How about web access to your banking?
Isn't encryption pretty much the only reason to use whatsapp? There's far easier software to use if you don't care about encryption.. facebook, aol instant messenger, IRC... there's probably only about 5,000 different options.
I think be "real" she really meant "little".
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Unfortunately, since 37.4% of registered voters decided to drag us out of the EU (aka "a clear, democratic majority"), causing the collapse of the Cameron government, our cabinet now consists of a load of politicians who struggle to work out the difference between their arses and elbows. Here's a hint: some of those arses are currently trying to negotiate leaving the EU, although they seem unclear what exactly the EU is.
Amber Rudd is just one of the many fuckwits allegedly running the country. At least this latest statement is a step up from her demanding access to the hashtags (sic) used by encryption software.
Best of all, 2/3rds of those who voted for us to leave the EU have said they want it to happen even if the UK economy is totally destroyed in the process, and they and their families lose their jobs. The whole country is overrun by fuckwits.
That's what this woman sounds like. "You COMMON PEASANTS don't NEED 'encryption', that's only for IMPORTANT people like the NOBLES and the RICH. Be happy you're ALLOWED to use the Internet and have fancy devices like smartphones at all. Now, all of you RABBLE be quiet and DO AS YOU ARE TOLD WHEN YOU ARE TOLD." Fuck her, sideways with a rusty, Ebola-infested chainsaw.
Because they are neither stupid nor dishonest enough for that.
Now, a recent trend seems to be that real people have stopped to recognize how stupid and dishonest politicians are, and that one is worrying.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I mean technically no... nobody cares what I'm saying to my friends on a daily basis. But a private conversation can be spun 1000x ways when you don't understand the relationship or context. ...with extreme amount of sleaze bag lawyers, district attorneys, and predatory prosecutors we have, it's just good insurance to protect your private conversations.
I don't even use WhatsApp because it's Facebook and I don't trust them.
I use Signal.
If the State enforces non-secure communications, then I will stop communicating.
Another win for feminism.
Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
Honestly, how in the world does someone with so little understanding of data security ever get into any position of authority over innocent people's privacy?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I find it amusing that no one has noticed in the article, that Ms. Rudd herself says that the government wants this for operations that are not technically legal.
From the article itself, not far under the video.
"It’s a problem for the security services and for police who are not, under the normal way, under properly warranted paths, able to access that information."
This quote only shows those who follow the logic of "Well what do you have to hide?" that the government is not acting in the best legal interests of its citizens.
I'm not sure how the left and right have gotten so far away from right and wrong and started simply fighting each other, instead of looking out for their constituencies.A sad state of politics, even in the UK. I mean, I know the UK is upset over losing to the Americans all those years ago, but I would think that losing to them would make you /not/ want to emulate their worst parts.
Real people don't need some grasping, piece of shit politician - a fucking criminal (killer, thief, liar) doing business as 'government', pretending to 'know better' and make decisions on their behalf, in their 'best interests'. To the English 'home secretary' - fucking kill yourself.
Of which there seem be a lot these days in the UK. It is scary that such ignoramuses are making decisions that will be affecting our lives for years to come.
... on to wikileaks or something? Preferably including subscription confirmations to porn-sites and such? Thanks. ... Jesus H.B. Crickey, how I hate these idiots.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Real people often prefer ease of use and a multitude of features to perfect, unbreakable security ... Who uses WhatsApp because it is end-to-end encrypted, rather than because it is an incredibly user-friendly and cheap way of staying in touch with friends and family? Companies are constantly making trade-offs between security and 'usability,' and it is here where our experts believe opportunities may lie.
Sorry but I really don't follow her logic here. She makes it sound like they're mutually exclusive, yet in the same breath gives an example of a company who has millions of users because they're easy to use and have rolled out end-to-end encryption at the same time. No trade-off required.
And a significant part of their "real" user base did want that feature after the NSA revelations. They didn't roll it out for no reason, they did so in response to uproar from their users when they found out how widespread breach of privacy was.
Getting a terrorist isn't achieved by decrypting everybody's private messages and making fraud, identity theft, extortion and the likes waaaaay easier than it is now.
If you want to get Mr. Terrorist, you've got to do the old stile intelligence work. Which means actual hard labor; Which costs money. Yesyes, you don't want to spend money and think that listening in on everybody will net you Mr. Terrorist. I'll tell you something simple:
Mr. Terrorist is trying everything in his power to remain undetected, so he won't conveniently sms that he will plant a bomb at busy place X, so you can find him.
Trying to kill encryption for the masses, will not keep it out of the hands of Mr. Terrorist. Mr. Terrorist already has moved beyond whatsapp. Sneakernet still exists today, you know... and in order to intercept communication via sneakernet, you need intelligence the old way: hard work.
But, because privacy got killed, you now have endless options for man-in-the-middle attacks by all kinds of evil-doers. But hey! You "conveniently" forget about that. You "conveniently" forget about the possibilities for fraud, identity theft, harassment and other crimes this would open.
Dear idiot. Measures like these will only affect those you are trying to "protect." In reality it's just another oppression tool, isn't it?
Darn, Consider this my last post then.
'Real' governments do not need to hide their operations and finances from their citizens
Two can play the name calling game. Man up and learn to govern and police and quit trying to take the easy way out, politicians.
"substantially disrupt terrorists' ability to use the internet in furthering their causes, while also respecting human rights."
Last time I checked, privacy is a human right. This is true in the US, and it is equally true in the UK (until Brexit is completed, at the very least).
If the right to privacy cannot cover something as basic as free speech, what good is it?
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
You know if the tech companies did comply she'd be the first one to seek end to end encryption for herself. The solution is always easy when its someone elses ox that's being gored.
So, the British police never take any tips from the informants through common messaging apps?
>Who uses WhatsApp because it is end-to-end encrypted, rather than because it is an incredibly user-friendly and cheap way of staying in touch with friends and family?
I do! Some of my friends and family are in countries without the freedom of speech protections of the United States and the United Kingdom. ThoughtCrime can get you in a lot of trouble in large parts of the world.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
When someone, somewhere, anywhere even, says that I don't need end-to-end encryption I take it as a sure sign that I desperately, immediately need end-to-end encryption on everything.
If they weren't deeply invested in being able to see everything I send to anyone they wouldn't even care about making such an announcement. That they are saying this means they are being frustrated by the idea of private communication. Good. Fuck them.
You want the details of my communication? Fine, start up a conversation with me and whatever I send you is yours to do with as you wish. Or check what I post online under my real name. Any other viewing of my private communications is a violation of my privacy you authoritarian shit bag, and requires a warrant and a damn good reason.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Can I get VC funding to create a Whatsapp clone that simply forwards ALL messages from person A to person B to the NSA branches off all government (USA, UK, France, Russia, China, North and South Korea, Iraq, Iran, all 198 or so of them). I should be able to raise simple VC to fund the project - and since users don't care grab a 50 percent market share (because they don't care it is flip a coin on if it is me or it is Whatsapp). Since this is an advertised feature vs Whatsapp's advertised feature of end to end security - we can judge how important this feature is to end users.
VC please send your offer sheets to me here, I am willing to give away 25% non-voting shares in exchange for 10% of the valuation of Whatsapp/WeChat/something similar
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
Sure, real people don't need encryption, and honest people don't need privacy. (You can trust marketing companies....TRUST me). No one will abuse people's personal info as long as it's public and available to all, especially the government. Of course that logic might 50% apply if you always agreed with your government (like Trump), never voiced an opinion that that created inconvenience for those in power and never wanted a meaning opinion voiced. Mao believed in all this too, as does Putin. But do we really want to be in such company directly or indirectly?
Snowden correctly stated: You only have nothing to hide, if you have nothing to say.. Another famous quote by Benjamin Franklin: "Those who give up their civil liberties for a little extra safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
I choose a chat app based almost entirely on its security. If you've ever seen what the local police get when they tower dump SMS traffic, you would too. And because of crazy government spy shit like Stingrays,you NEED end to end encryption. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/10/racial-disparities-in-police-stingray-surveillance-mapped/502715/ In the USA, government spying itself is the reason I need E2E crypto. Like, Duh.
Great idea for a CV!
Don't let them use end to end encryption for their banking, stock market fiddling, and buying stuff over the internet with a credit card. Come on, it's only right!
2 weeks of this and these bankrupt assholes might find the clue pile.
Real people often prefer ease of use and a multitude of features to perfect, unbreakable security ... Who uses WhatsApp because it is end-to-end encrypted, rather than because it is an incredibly user-friendly and cheap way of staying in touch with friends and family? Companies are constantly making trade-offs between security and 'usability,' and it is here where our experts believe opportunities may lie.
This statement is so full of darkness it makes me sick. Inferring that certain people on this planet, whom biologically are definitely people, but they're not people. This is a total error and very disturbing to classify -any- group of people as 'not real.' Or less than people. Regardless of justifications, this is just disturbing.
As much as I dislike invoking Godwin's law, but this just smacks of something you'd hear a NAZI say. Disgusting.
Encryption isn't even a word I saw or gave any thought to. The classification of any group as 'not real people' just turns my stomach and flies in the face of rationality and civility. This person classifying a group of people as 'not real people' based on their preference for security is just appalling.
Sickening. This kind of thinking has no place in our world. Or it shouldn't. That it does, and doesn't spark a chorus of outrage is disturbing in itself.
That was part of the UK and descended into total chaos over the independence issue. Just because we've avoided issues for centuries doesn't mean that it couldn't all go horribly wrong; if Corbyn is win an election - especially if there was significant hints of electoral abuses.
And remember 'A Very British Coup' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's not sufficient to say she's ignorant. That makes her sound too educated. It's more communicative to say she is igger-unt.
My pet analogy: I don't have anything to hide, but damned if I want a camera in my bathroom.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I think some 'terrorism' is much overdue against these terrorist thugs calling themselves a government.
Burglars: "real people" don't need locks on their doors.
Embezzlers: "real people" don't need audits on their accounts.
Rapists and muggers: "real people" don't need Mace.
And when lovely moslem migrants still regularly commit/praise acts of terror? Then what's the excuse?
Filthy islamophobic white people provoking the lovely moslem migrants?
What about when the lovely moslem migrants rape and kill each other?
They couldn't possibly be islamophobic.
White genocide is real.
I like this version: "It's no secret what I do in the bathroom, but I still close the door."
We are more complex than that.
What real people don't need is a pompous, ignorant ass like Amber Rudd for Home Secretary.
Real People ...
Is that a code-word for "natural persons"? Because 'natural persons' is a legal term meaning not a business and subject to the laws of the government. In other words, she is making a loophole where businesses (and government) can use encrypted messaging apps: It's only person-to-person messages that have to be plain-text. I imagine, a number of people want to discuss sexual issues but don't want thugs with guns (eg. the government) knowing who they are fucking (eg. homosexuals, prostitutes, fetishists). It's important to remember that surveillance is retroactive: What was legal yesterday can be illegal today. Which is very ugly when the government knows who someone has been talking to and what about.
If I were involved in a lawsuit (civil, not criminal) and wanted to send relevant documentation to my attorney, I would definitely want end-to-end encryption. After all, there have been real instances of attorneys and their private investigators engaging in illegal practices in attempts to gain sensitive data about their opponents.
For other reasons why end-to-end encryption might be important to non-terrorists, see my http://www.rossde.com/PGP/pgp_....
I am conviced she does understand. Personally this type of argument has come from politicians from all of the five eyes and i feel that certain agencies may be running this show. I wonder what they have on Amber Rudd other than the fact she is a cunt.
...says the person who declares themself judge, jury, and executioner.
"Real People" don't need to protect their rights. That's what government is for.
Regular people don't need an envelope that keeps the contents confidential when sending mail. They can use postcards that anyone can read whenever they interact by mail with their doctor, bank, or other businesses. Next time my credit card is up for renewal I'll ask the bank to make the envelope completely transparent so that the authorities can confirm that there's nothing nefarious in there.
Real people must also not need locks on their doors, because the only reason to lock your door is so that no one can see your illegal activities. Forget protecting your property, that is like protecting your privacy, not important to the government.
It should be obvious by now.
The U.K. Gov. wants total control of their citizens. They've shut the borders now, makes it a little easier to see and control who's going anywhere or who stays in their country, not to mention - WHO gets to stay there.
Internet & telephone usage information storage, mandated by law. Just so anything you say CAN and WILL be used against you, if so need be. CCTV monitoring everywhere (U.K. has the worlds largest CCTV monitoring system).
The "if you got nothing to hide, then you don't have to worry" fallacy is a sentence made to mislead the feeble minded. Because anyone with at least half a brain understand that information is power. You're displeased with the place you work, so you talk to your friends about this, you email, you chat online with them. Now what if that employer were government, and someone was looking into you, and then got this information? Do you honestly think they'd improve your life? They would do what THEY THINK is BEST for THEMSELVES, and you'd essentially be screwed.
Not to mention how we as humans judge each other every day of our life. Oh, that kid is no good because his father did something wrong, or there must be something wrong with "Susan" because her mother was under psychological treatment back in 1984. Even tho there is nothing wrong with her today, this kind of digging into families lives - will essentially destroy them.
I'm simply astonished that the population of U.K. are willingly accepting a government like that.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Despite the obscene new police state laws in the UK imposed since Blair first rose to power, the use of those powers is 'soft' and currently impacts few lives. BUT the 'example' of those laws is exported wholesale to second and thirld world nations- whose unpleasant leaders can say "if the British consider these powers reasonable, we can have them too.
Where these disgusting British policies are replicated, they are immediately used to abuse the population and close down the opposition. Serving British police personnel actually oversee secret police activity in Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia.
So Tony Blair and his lieutenants are creating police state TEMPLATE systems for export across the planet.
In the UK, people are far more concerned with the "your kids belong to the state" Blair laws that punish parents for daring to take their kids out of school for family holidays- no matter what their age (yet British schools have a long tradition of arranging term time holidays for the kids supervised by the school- somehow it is different when state authorities are doing the same thing).
Blair has made Britain a cold, brutal, cowed society, where the tabloids are used to push coming social engineering agendas of the most vile type. Rupert Murdoch's organs, The BBC, ITV and Guardian newspaper are Blair's direct mouthpieces. Brits are living in 'Animal Farm' and scummy thickie Rudd is just squawking the dictats of a most demonic 'napoleon'.
You Yanks would be now experiencing the same if Blair's apprentice, Clinton, had won the election. But you yanks now have a unified 'Clinton' congress instead demanding war with Iran and then Russia. Your unified 'Clinton' Congress is atrocity in motion, as you will soon discover.
Since governments and military are made up of "Real People" then they also do not need encryption on anything then right?
John
Government may not want me to lock my doors, so in the event law enforcement wants to come in to look around, they can simply turn the knob and come in.
However, criminals will also have the same ease of entry.
Answer's simple: Government needs to look at my data, they get a warrant, just like with entering a residence.
Firewall off UK. Nothing of worth could possibly go on there. No banking security, no secure transmission of corporate data. Just cut them off and let them suffer.
"Real Governments" don't need encryption either, since they should have nothing to hide from their citizens. If only terrorists need encryption, then I say the government should lead by example.
Everybody needs, or should have the ability to use, end-to-end encryption in their messaging applications, for the purpose of protecting their privacy.
The story on Slashdot right now about how the NSA was spying on Kim DotCom says otherwise.
Since we can't trust YOU not to spy on US, I guess WE have to take matters into our own hands.
In China, messaging has become the new platform for e-Commerce and payments. Nice to see the UK government holding back progress in the newly independant Britain by limiting the scope of messaging to casual chit-chat that "real people" don't care about being public. At least the EU has got rid of them now, so they don't need to get dragged back with these luddites.
Since all of the miscreants involved in the recent islamist terrorist attacks in the UK were already known to the intelligence services - and in some cases were known to have been to Syria/Libya and returned - it's hard for the home secretary to argue that additionally removing encryption from messaging services will make us more safe. They already had enough information to monitor/arrest the suspected terrorists - they just didn't, for whatever reason.
Want to make a bet that being able to send money over iMessage is a pre-emptive strike against this kind of legislation. I mean sure, they wanted it eventually...but I would be $10 right now that there was a meeting at apple over pushing iMessage money transfers as fast as possible to counter this type of legislation. Because apple knows that no UK politician will attack the big financial institutions, and if they come after iMessage, they now also come after your banking app
If would be a shame if someone hacked into her private emails and text messages and made them public.
A crying shame.
-- Will program for bandwidth
So she's going to break SMPTE's x.509-based encryption of movies as delivered to theaters?
This has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. There is a single goal here: government monopoly of encryption technology. There's absolutely no way that industry in the UK can survive without encryption that it uses to day. If Rudd gets her way anyone who wants to sell/use encryption must obtain a license from the government and, unless they fit some arbitrary and meaningless criteria (i.e. Rudd's friends) they will be subjected to constant government oversight to ensure that the appropriate back doors are in place and the 'real' people aren't getting their hands on heir exclusive IP.
This is the issue (i.e. that if we could read all the messages sent by bad people then we'd be safer from those particular bad people).
However, the response of bad people to a blanket encryption ban (because that's what is coming at us ALL like a freight train) is that they would start using unapproved encryption, retaining their ability to plan in secret. In the end, only law abiding people would have their legitimate use of encryption removed and the effect would be that bad people (including corrupt governments) would achieve a net gain from this.
If you support an encryption ban (or official back doors, which is exactly the same thing), then you are giving the worst of the worst a leg up.
I wouldn't personally use a program without end to end encryption, precisely because I want to keep people like her out of my communications. Rudd is a danger to democracy, and a clear enemy of the people.
I hope she gets hacked from now until the time Doctor Who gets cancelled for good.
They are trying to listen in on 'real people'.
First of all: what are real people? In the sense of the vocabulary, real people exist while imaginary people only exist in one's mind. The latter do not need encryption. Real people do. However, she might have meant normal people. Unfortunately, she is an upper class person and therefore does not know normal people or at least have forgotten how they think an live and what their needs are. Therefore, it is either a lie or typical upper class narcicism or both.
Normal people want to do banking or trading or legal stuff. All these things work only with encryption. They even want to send pictures to their friends and family and keep the images away from evil people who prank them who blackmail them etc.
real politicians don't need bodyguards, a fence around their fancy house or bulletproof vests.
Those willing to sacrifice liberty for a little security deserve neither liberty nor security.
nothing wrong with transparency. encryption is about hiding, signing is about identity and that no-one tampers with your messages. ftw.
It is hardly difficult to write an app that does end to end message encryption. So introducing some sort of block on Whatsapp is a waste of effort.
because yeah, we can trust in your competence:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/01/sweden-scrambles-to-tighten-data-security-as-scandal-claims-two-ministers
And this is only the tip of the iceberg
Everyone is focusing on the 'real people' statement, but the true idiocy is what she said just before:
"I know some will argue that it's impossible to have both - that if a system is end-to-end encrypted then it's impossible ever to access the communication. That might be true in theory. But the reality is different."
She appears to be asserting that there is some bizarre version of reality in which it is possible to have a system with end-to-end encryption and yet still be able to access the communication. How the *fuck* does that work? She is either stupid or disingenuous. Or both.
On their citizens.
This is why mainstream OSs are so prone to malware, why hack-prone WordPress is so popular. It may be true, but it is not a good thing.
John_Chalisque
It has been confirmed that the UK Home Secretary is pants-on-head retarded.
As far as Amber Rudd is concerned anyone who disagrees with her isn't a "real" person anyway. See https://www.craigmurray.org.uk...
Why? So she is not a real person, by her own definition.
Well maybe she is just a hypocrite, telling other people they can't have what she so obviously wants for herself.
#fail
End to end encryption not only protects criminals, but also protects regular people from MITM hijackers, ISPs spying on people, wifi hotspot advertisers spying on you for targetted ads, MITM advertisers hijacking web pages, circumventing content filters ( which often filter out tehnically legal content, like legal torrents, e.g. linux ISOs, which are legal and distributed primarily with torrents).
End to end encryption protects against hackers and a single point of failure for the entire system. It's justgood design.
No need for any changes - warrants cover all things. We do not need peeping toms.
Define in law, black and white what is terrorism and state that everything else is excluded. Wants and needs need definition.
Terrorism and Pedophilia might be two items worthy of exceptions without a warrant. But the gate is being kept open - just like East Germany in the bad old days.
Will they ignore murder or drug importations? Bribes and electoral donations?
Will this include Anorexia, copyright issues, General revenue, VAT or parking fines in the future?
We have Mr Dotcom in NZ who is has been illegally abused and they wonder why no one trusts the government.
This is in very bad faith and dishonest at multiple levels. Not stated is that Google and others do snitch and cooperate where there is a warrant. And the terms and scope of the warrant can't be made into a fishing exercise. Britain will find out extreme parties may boot out stupid parties with more wants than brains.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
end-to-end encryption ...
curtains
drapes
shutters
blinds
Spying is Good.
Real people don't need to encrypt their data because real democracies would never dream of opening anybodies letters or tapping their phone, as they would have no real enemies or criminals.
Imagine, you're on vacation and your wife needs access to the bank account. You quickly message the pw to her while logged onto hotel wifi. Fun times ensue for any third party on that network!
She is correct assuming that we treat the internet as a hostile place not suitable for financial transactions or anything more private than cat pictures; so perhaps she's working for Walmart and wants to bring down internet retail.
That or she is a complete idiot.
- So a wife that wants to send a strip tease video to her loving husband who is away should send it without encryption so that anybody can see and so that it shows up on some porn site someday? Or live strip tease during a face to face chat session, that shouldn't be encrypted?
- So the tax lawyer shouldn't encrypt communication end to end when sharing sensitive tax data?
- So the defense attorney shouldn't encrypt communication end to end when communicating with a client?
- So a startup shouldn't encrypt communication about their proprietary software and should just let corporate espionage happen?
- A broker/financial adviser shouldn't use end-to-end encryption when passing data to and from his clients?
- What about HIPPA? Shouldn't medical records be transferred with end-to-end encryption?
I am pretty sure that I could go on finding use cases for real people to use end-to-end encryption, but the above is plenty.
So you don't think that the Iranians have done anything wrong then?
I agree that the Saudis have a lot to answer for but so do the Iranians. Just be careful you don't "accidentally" side against Muslim Sunnis and by implication, for Muslim Shia. That's an internal split in the Muslim world that, quite frankly, the Muslim world isn't very mature about addressing.
Our dispute is with bad character and bad behavior, not a religion or a religious sect.