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
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!
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...
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.
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.
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.
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'
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.
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
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.
They are. Are you not on the side of truth and justice?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You really shouldn't judge situations you do not understand.
Like here, they have a handful of crappy politicians they have to choose from. Some are utter crap on 90% of the issues, some are just crap on only 65% of the issues. But it's a democracy - so pick your poison.
The issue that most Brits seem to be peeved off about is that Brussels forcing their borders open and shoveling money hand over fist into places like Greece. They elected people who promised them relief. Too many people in Britain still remember the stories of Britain being a super power, and presiding over an empire on which the sun never set. Too many people remember that they can be doing better than the status quo.
Unfortunately, the people who promised them relief are also a bunch of nationalists, with absolutely no respect for privacy, human rights, and freedoms of any kind, responsibility for one's actions, etc. For most people, Teresa May's surveillance state was, however, not a significant enough blip on their radar compared to the other problems they have.
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.
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?
'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.
>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.
Nice try Anonymous Coward. I still see more posts from you.
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
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/...
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?
Yeah, the thing about referenda is that the results do not legally oblige the government to do anything or even recognise them. All the "the people have chosen, we have to do the will of the people" bullshit is to cover up the fact that _they_ wanted out of EU but knew they couldn't just announce that in Parliament.
Much better to place the blame on the populace "look, they wanted it, so we're giving it to them" so when it all goes to shit as they double deal to get the best for their wallets, not the people, they can wash their hands of it.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
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.
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_....
...says the person who declares themself judge, jury, and executioner.
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.
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.
"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.
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
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.
nothing wrong with transparency. encryption is about hiding, signing is about identity and that no-one tampers with your messages. ftw.
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.
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...
end-to-end encryption ...
curtains
drapes
shutters
blinds
- 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.