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.

27 of 348 comments (clear)

  1. So selfish by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:So selfish by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, totally public financial transactions would be really interesting. I mean, you still need some way of signing them, but you don't need end-to-end encryption per se. There's this bitcoin thing based on that concept.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:So selfish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This argument is irrelevant. What I, or anyone else want to encrypt from the government is none of their damn business. We shouldn't have to provide justification for having conversations in private.

    3. Re: So selfish by Dan1701 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      She comes off as a twit bureaucrat whose knowledge of computers is spoon-fed to her by lower ranking twit bureaucrats

      Her argument doesn't even make sense!

      If, for example, WhatsApp or iMessage were to remove encryption tomorrow - they wouldn't be any more (or any less) user-friendly than they are today. From a user's point of view, what they need to do to use the app wouldn't change one iota, because the end-to-end encryption is basically frictionless.

      Her argument makes sense only when you look at the context it is made in. She is the leader of a party which held an election recently, thinking that their main opponent was so utterly useless that the result would be a massively increased majority for them. In this assumption, she and her party were wrong, because the opposition rightly surmised that telling outright lies and promising untold riches stolen from "the rich" via tax, borrowing and printing more money would increase their vote share by persuading the younger and stupider voters to vote for them.

      This technique worked.

      Mrs May is now working with a greatly reduced majority, and cannot steamroller through unpopular or just plain wrong-headed legislation at will.

      This is why we are seeing this transparent pleading and attempts at persuasion; any attempt to impose legislation against companies who will in the main simply ignore her and her stupid laws is going to fail. Britain is also in the process of leaving the European Union, and once it has done so will drop down to "nowhere very much" in terms of economic clout when it comes to negotiating with technology giants.

      So, mindless drivel from now on will be the order of the day, and indeed has always been so with politicians and encryption. Ever since the written source code to Phil Zimmermann's PGP was smuggled out of the US, the public has had access to strong end to end encryption, and the laws of physics and mathematics thus trump the laws that can be dreamed up by politicians.

    4. Re: So selfish by bestweasel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "printing more money"

      Print £500 billion for the banks? No problem, we'll call it Quantitative Easing.

      Print £500 billion for the government? Economic madness.

    5. Re: So selfish by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it's just the usual politics of blame.

      Labour capitalized on people noticing that austerity had been a lie - it wasn't all of us in it together, it was most of us getting fucked over and the rich staying nice and rich. The people who caused the banking crisis certainly didn't suffer like the rest of us did.

      Now the Tories are back to their usual tactic of blaming people of their own ineffective and half baked policies. I'm sure they could stop terrorism if only Whats App would disable encryption. Yeah, that's the problem.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. the biggest terrorists by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Like the USA, the biggest terrorist organization in the UK is the government

    1. Re: the biggest terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Firstly, she's a she. Secondly, it's not her chosen profession - she was allotted that cabinet role, and could easily be doing education or transport in the next reshuffle. Thirdly, if she thinks banning encryption does anything to stop criminals who, by definition, do things illegally, I'd suggest she's awful at her job.

    2. Re:the biggest terrorists by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but there's no reason to assume that he's not acting in good faith

      Of course there is: the loaded language she uses precludes good faith. The choice of words is designed to make it sound as if there is something wrong with you if you want encryption, and if you want it then you're not the sort of person the government wants to protect.

      That's pretty much textbook bad faith.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:the biggest terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's not acting in good faith. Otherwise he would know that backdoors can and commonly are repurposed by criminal actors and enemies of the state. The more people have access to a key, the more likely it will leak. Look at the TSA lock backdoors in physical security - people already have 3D printable keys to unlock TSA backdoored physical locks. Any government-access key in any existing security system will be similarly leaked and reused for nefarious purposes.

      What happens if ISIS finds your backdoors?

    4. Re:the biggest terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Have you? Mandatory "diversity training", professors that will not accept any viewpoint but their own (liberal) and will dock points on papers/tests for non-conformance, social ostracism of any inkling of conservative views, entry requirements that scale based on race / minority status, safe spaces where white people are not allowed, banning conservative speakers because they are "hateful" (as defined by liberals).

      I could go on but it amounts to the following:
        - Liberals unilaterally decide what is acceptable. This may be speech, policies, or anything.
        - Liberals then deem anything that falls outside these bounds to be unacceptable, evil, and thus should be shut down - unilaterally.
        - Speech is not only not-free; you can acually be punished for speaking negatively about thing like Muslim terrorists, illegal immigrants, etc. In what world is it ok to jail someone for saying that someone breaking the law ought to be punished. We are literally jailing people and kicking them out of school for wanting to ENFORCE THE LAW.
        - If Liberals don't get their way, they riot, destroy property, assault people, and blame the other side for forcing them to do it.
        - Result is a living hell for anyone not falling in line with the unilateral "Liberal Mindset" on university campus.
        - The liberal mindset is so poisonous you have to have special classes to figure out what is acceptable: Rape culture = Bad; BUT Muslims (rape is acceptable) = Good; Gays = Awesome; Muslims (want to kill gays) = Great; Racism = Bad; Affirmative Action (institutionalized racism) = Amazing; Cultural Appropriation = Very Bad; USA is too "White" = Needs more Culture; Poor Black Man = fault of whitey; Rich Black Man = Uncle Tom; Climate Change = Science+Stats+Extrapolation=Answer, Dumbass; Black Crime Rates = don't look at the data, lets discuss other stuff; The amount of double think is mind numbing.
        - Nothing is done to arrest or hold the Liberals accountable
        -

      The above occurs in fucking RED states. Blue states are so bad conservative kids don't go there or they STFU.

    5. Re: the biggest terrorists by PoopJuggler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Intolerance of bigotry is not fascism.

    6. Re:the biggest terrorists by Phydeaux314 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In my opinion, people should be free to practice the religion of their choice so long as their religious views do not necessitate changes in behavior of others.

      Example: "I believe the soul enters the body at conception, and thus consider abortion to be unethical and I will not perform one or have one performed on me."

      That's fine. You're stating your view on a religious issue and how it dictates your behavior. You are welcome to opt out of having an abortion or going into careers where you provide them, because you have your religious freedom.

      Example #2: "I believe the soul enters the body at conception, therefore abortion is murder and should be banned."

      This is problematic, because you're taking your view - the soul enters the body at conception - and using it to change the law to have other people adhere to your beliefs. What if they hold a religious belief that the soul only enters the body after a hundred and forty four days? Abortion would thus be an ethical choice to someone with that belief until roughly halfway through the second trimester.

      In the same way, I believe that people have the right to hold their own religious views - including conservative muslim ones - so long as those views do not require other people to adjust their public behavior for them. I don't care if you or your female associates wear a head covering, but I do care if you try to make my female friends wear them.

      --
      Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
  3. Crap politics by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 4, Insightful

    induce terrorism.

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
  4. I am real people... by williamyf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:I am real people... by Enigma2175 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And more so, I also WANT end to end encryption on all my comms.

      This is the point. All the people justifying encryption for their banking data, sexting data, etc. are barking up the wrong tree. We don't NEED to justify our communications to the government, I'll communicate any way I choose. Fuck the authoritarian assholes that think they can tell me what I can and can't do - I haven't done anything wrong and refuse to be treated like a vassal of the state. I am a free man and will do what I please and will work and vote against anyone who thinks it should be otherwise.

      --

      Enigma

  5. So, Why Don't you Publish your IMs and Email? by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

  6. Tell that to... by Misagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  7. Re:Nothing to Hide by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  8. Plenty of completely legal contact that is none.. by Tyr07 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. I live in Venezuela - MOD PARENT UP!!!! by williamyf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Caps Intended

    --
    *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
  10. Re:After all, we all know... by mark-t · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  11. Dear idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  12. 'real' governments by jmccue · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'Real' governments do not need to hide their operations and finances from their citizens

  13. Right... by EndlessNameless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.
  14. interesting logic, if you believe in 1984 by evolutionary · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  15. Remember Ireland by Bruce66423 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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/...