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.

23 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 ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The summary said messenging apps. Do you use Whatsapp to for that purpose?

      Whatsapp is not the world's biggest messaging app. That would be WeChat. WeChat does financial transactions. It was used for about $3 trillion in transactions in 2016.

    2. Re:So selfish by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Informative

      I keep sensitive data for the family. If someone needs an SSN, say signing up a child at a school, and messages me for it, I should be legally allowed to encrypt the response, if I so choose.

    3. Re:So selfish by thsths · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Now the key question is: is the Home Secretary a Real Person?

    4. 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. 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 apoc.famine · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, I'm revising my resume to indicate that I'm a fake person, so there's that. It's going to make me stand out from the crowd, that's for sure.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    2. 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. Math. by ewhenn · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'll perform any math I choose with who I want when I want. Thank you very much.

  9. 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.

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

    Caps Intended

    --
    *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
  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. My point exactly... by Dread_ed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  15. 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