'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
induce terrorism.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
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!
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...
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
You're talking about a country where a slim majority voted to cut off the metaphorical branch they were standing on because some con-artists sold them the illusion that they somehow get control (oh, and apparently vast amounts of money for the NHS).
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Caps Intended
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
Even if that position were true, it is irrelevant... since everyone, and I mean *EVERYONE*, including Ms Rudd, has something to hide.
But having something to hide does not mean that there is anything wrong, it can be simply because they simply want something to be private.
I mean, most people wear clothes when they are socializing with others. Is there something wrong with people's bodies that they need to keep them covered up? (There very well be for some, but this is beside the point). I am, of course, being rhetorical... people generally keep their privates covered up when they are in public because they are just that: private.
So to suggest that real people don't need end-to-end encryption is saying that real people don't really need any privacy. I'd like to see what she'd have to say if she were made aware that by extension, she should be required to never wear any clothes anymore.... unless she contends that she herself is not a real person.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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?
'Real' governments do not need to hide their operations and finances from their citizens
"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.
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
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/...