11 ms·
Real people don't need end-to-end encryption says UK Home Secretary
- gargravarr 9y agoAnd I thought the BBC article was bad enough. This is just appalling. "Real people" just use ROT13...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- DarkKomunalec 9y agoReal people keep their heads down, don't question authority, and don't cause trouble.
- gargravarr 9y agohttp://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/1984.jpg http://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/1984.jpg
- vectorEQ 9y agoreal people don't need UK Home Secretary.
- trendia 9y agocriticizing the UK Home Secretary? Sure sounds like harassment to me!
- objclxt 9y ago> Companies are constantly making trade-offs between security and 'usability', and it is here where our experts believe opportunities may lie. Amber Rudd's "experts" couldn't prevent a simple brute force attack on her own parliament that would have easily been mitigated with 2FA (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/26/parliament_email_hack/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/26/parliament_email_ha...)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- HelloNurse 9y ago"So, there are options. But they rely on mature conversations between the tech companies and the Government - and they must be confidential" i.e. backdoors. Trust us, we are the government!
- choward 9y agoThat's such bullshit. If anything only government conversations conducted by public servants should be made public and private conversations should be, well, private.
- Joeboy 9y agoI don't think her statement actually says "real people don't need end-to-end encryption". I'm not sure what she is saying though. Not banning end-to-end encryption, not asking for back doors, but having "mature conversations" that have something to do with trade-offs between usability and security. What?
- konradb 9y agoThese conversations are about being able to decrypt the conversations without using the term backdoor. The government will see them as mature if it is given access.
- mi100hael 9y ago> Real people often prefer ease of use and a multitude of features to perfect, unbreakable security. So this is not about asking the companies to break encryption or create so called "back doors". 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. lol what a terrible argument. > suggesting that E2E encryption hinders usability > points to the massive number of WhatsApp as proof
- AlexandrB 9y agoActually I think it's a pretty devious argument. This is effectively saying that most people value convenience over security & privacy. Given the track record of corporate surveillance and ad supported content this is absolutely correct. After all WhatsApp users are already OK with Facebook collecting their metadata for advertising purposes.
- TremendousJudge 9y ago>After all WhatsApp users are already OK with Facebook collecting their metadata for advertising purposes They aren't either OK or not OK. The overwhelming majority of WhatsApp users simply don't know. They don't even think about it. In fact, the average user doesn't even know that WhatsApp is owned by Facebook, or even that it used to be a paid subscription
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- gargravarr 9y agoShe's basically saying you could remove E2E encryption from WhatsApp and a significant number of people would still use it willingly. Most wouldn't even notice the difference. And she's alarmingly right in that regard.
- nsnick 9y agoThe problem is largely the UK's lack of a constitution. There are no checks or balances in the UK. Parliament can literally do anything they want. The courts can't block Parliament. Parliament can just abolish the courts. The house of lords can't stop the house of commons, the commons can just override the lords. The queen won't veto the commons because she fears parliament will just abolish the monarchy.
- dtech 9y agoThe US has shown with the NSA and FISA courts that a constitution will not prevent practices like this.
- rcthompson 9y agoIt's a necessary but not a sufficient condition. That doesn't make it useless.
- bitJericho 9y agoI think the US proves that the "constitution" as any mechanism for safety is absurd. It's ignored or abused when it's convenient.
- ende 9y agoThe problem is that the protections of civil liberties work for for the times and contexts under which they were formulated, but they are not adapted to evolving technology and culture as frequently as efforts to circumvent them. It's reverse hill climbing via million slippery slopes.
- theandrewbailey 9y ago> The problem is that the protections of civil liberties work for for the times and contexts under which they were formulated... The people who wrote the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights survived a time when the most powerful army in the world was marching through their backyards. I have no doubt they had that in mind when they were writing freedoms into law.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- turc1656 9y agoI realize the article was about the UK, but this entire encryption/spying issue certainly applies to the US as well. My comments are regarding the US because I don't know enough about the UK's laws and general situation to speak on it. The cat is out of the bag. End to end encryption that is very easy for the average user to use exists. There's no going back. These terrorists that they are so worried about are going to use it (if they have any common sense), even if it is outlawed somehow. Making it illegal or extremely difficult to use is the same as gun control - the criminals are still going to break the law because their end goal is a crime far worse and if they are willing to commit that crime then they are surely willing to commit the lesser crime of not getting a license for a weapon or possibly using end-to-end encryption. In the US we supposedly have the 4th amendment to protect against this NSA spying criminality. The 4th amendment protects against both search and seizure. The giant dragnet they use to sweep up all communications over private channels is supposed to be a crime without a warrant. And when done in bulk it should be easily considered a mass, rank violation of the 4th amendment. For example, in the case of your cell phone, you agree to allow a private business to forward your data and communications. They theoretically can access it all, including your GPS because of the cell tower triangulation. That should be understood as necessary to providing the base service. But your agreement is only with the telecom provider, not the government. The government just decided to stick it's head in and declare itself to have a national security interest in the data of not just you, but everyone in the entire nation, and demanded access to it all. What's worse is that these programs have not been proven to actually stop terrorists: https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/u-s-mass-surveillance-has-no-record-of-thwarting-large-terror-attacks-regardless-of-snowden-leaks/ https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/u-s-mass-surveillance-ha... http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/nsa-program-stopped-no-terror-attacks-says-white-house-panel-f2D11783588 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/nsa-program-stopped-no-ter... In fact, based on my memory, every instance of a thwarted attack has been the FBI actually communicating directly with alleged terrorists using undercover agents. This is how actual investigative work has historically been done. They followed up on tips, evidence, etc. and followed the leads and performed a real investigation and followed the proper warrant protocols. And doing it "the hard way" has yielded them more terrorists in handcuffs than the NSA. The results are so abysmal for the PRISM program and it's siblings, that it begs the question whether or not stopping terrorists is even the real purpose. Personally, I have never thought it was the main goal. Sure, they might catch some, but I think the real purpose is to make sure no one poses a political threat. If anyone starts to get out of line or cause too many problems, they can just rifle through all their data they have on you and find something to use against you. How many people are clean enough to escape that? Ever, even once, downloaded an illegal mp3? Ever watch a movie on an illegal, streaming tube site or use torrents? Ever cheated, even a little on your taxes? Ever cheated on your spouse? Have a porn fetish that others may find unsavory? In the closet? Are you fully in compliance with every housing regulation? Have permits for every little thing that legally requires a permit? Have any secrets that aren't illegal but may be embarrassing? Done anything that isn't illegal but people would look upon with disdain? It might just be used against you.
- diego_moita 9y agoDear UK secretary: your department lost credibility to talk about "real people" needs when the UK police helped Murdoch's "News of the World" to hack into "real people" phones. But I don't expect you to understand your own responsibilities so let's just wait until Vladimir Putin hacks into any server containing your private information. Then UK politicians will understand.
- netsharc 9y agoNah, she's an "important" politician, so she's not "real people", she's allowed to use encryption. Phone hacking? Well celebs are not real people either, they should be able to apply to use encryption, in her mind.
- MrsPeaches 9y agoNot just celebs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Milly_Dowler#Voicemail_tampering_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Milly_Dowler#Voicema...
- samdung 9y ago"Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity" - Zuckerberg
- jacquesm 9y agoZuckerberg lecturing anybody on integrity is really weird.
- mattmanser 9y agoBasically she's saying chat apps in the UK shouldn't be allowed end-to-end encryption. So the terrorists will setup a chat system that look like payments. In the mean-time, the UK government will use our chat to identify harmless political dissidents, groom them online and then fail to incite them to violence. Given previous performance, they will meet some of their targets, get a few pregnant and then get sued 20 years later when someone reports on how idiotic the police and spies really can be while everyone sane scratches their heads about the targeted pro-solar-power "terrorists", who happened to piss off Lord McOil who had a quiet chat with his Eton buddy in GCHQ which got them classified as dangerous. After 5 years, Boris, our new PM, will decide to give government departments access to find benefit cheats and illegal immigrants. The system they'll build will cost more than they recoup and will be a drop in the bucket compared to what they could have recovered if they had spent 1/10th of that money chasing rich tax dodgers. A couple of years later, they will give councils access to the whole country's chat to try and catch some fly-tippers. In this time, the civil servants will actually use the system to stalk ex-girlfriends, random crushes and celebrities or spy on wives and husbands. Eventually, some civil servant will accidentally leave a hyper-storage-cube on the bus containing the last 5 years of everyone's chat and it'll turn up on 4chan. The resulting misery and damage will be justified by the government because they once caught a "terrorist" who was standing in the street screaming "Allah is great" and stabbed a policeman. In reality he was a normal guy who had suffered from Bipolar Disorder but the NHS couldn't afford to treat him and classified him low risk, so ended up having a breakdown.
- talmand 9y agoHistory shows real people don't think they need things like end-to-end encryption until after their government starts taking it from them.
- gumby 9y agoBanning encryption won't hurt the bad guys since they can always use codes. I believe the Sept 2001 terrorists used terms like "birthday. Are", "candles" (for the WTC) etc. It will simply destroy the privacy of ordinary people who set up a dinner or buy a birthday present for their kids
- gumby 9y agoBanning encryption won't hurt the bad guys since they can always use codes. I believe the Sept 2001 terrorists used terms like "birthday. Are", "candles" (for the WTC) etc. It will simply destroy the privacy of ordinary people who set up a dinner or buy a birthday present for their kids
- throw2016 9y agoHilarious! Let's criminalize privacy and ask pointed questions to those who seek it. Staggering double speak from Orwell's own land. Who would have thought. Question: Is a terrorist more a threat to civilization or these closet totalitarians crawling out of the woodwork?
- gargravarr 9y agoOrwell wrote 1984 as a warning. Not an instruction manual.
- strictnein 9y agoIt'll be interesting in 10-15 years when the US is one of the few countries left that allow unfettered access to encryption, VPNs, secure messaging, etc. How does the saying go? "The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe"
- throwawaymanbot 9y agoits only a matter of time before the USA outlaws these also. I know the agencies are itching for it. Even though it would be unworkable.
- strictnein 9y agoDoubtful. Much of this is protected by the 1st amendment, since code was recognized as speech. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-established-code-speech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-estab...
- dsfyu404ed 9y agoKeep dreaming. Forced to choose between the agencies and big business who do you think the legislators will choose? Sure they can side with the agencies but if business isn't on-board with that checks will get written and there will be new legislators. I hope the agencies force the choice. It gives the legislators a chance to do all the things they should have done after Hoover left.
- throwawaymanbot 9y agoI really do hope you are right. I do remember Big Business complained about HTTPS use, coz it blocked them "hoovering"/vacuuming up customer info. (excuse the pun) Also, the Govt has liaison people with some of the Big Corps. Not to mention big corps give big checks to both sides, as routine, there is no financial hurt on the Pol Parties ever sadly. ATT for instance gets paid millions to give up the data. Update: I just read Amber Rudd (UK Pol goon) created the "Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism with Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube (Google/Alphabet, Inc.) and asked them to remove end-to-end encryption from their products "
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- logeek 9y agoAs demonstrated in this camera footage, terrorists do not use WhatsApp to plan attacks. They meet in person - without their phones: http://www.independent.co.uk/News/uk/home-news/london-attack-cctv-video-terrorists-ilford-gym-before-borough-market-stabbing-ummah-fitness-centre-a7778666.html http://www.independent.co.uk/News/uk/home-news/london-attack...
- mhkool 9y agoWhat politicians do not understand: - if we are forced to chat unencrypted, terrorists will communicate in "code": "the eagle will fly today" means "attack now!" - terrorists did successful attacks before the internet and before smartphones and do not need encryption - terrorists do harm because they are harmed. Stop harming them and they will leave you alone.
- drivingmenuts 9y ago> terrorists do harm because they are harmed. Stop harming them and they will leave you alone. That is a huge oversimplification. Terrorists do harm because they see a political value in harming others. For proof, look no further than the domestic terrorists who have bombed abortion clinics and shot doctors who worked there, or who have threatened to do same. All while being backed by religious organizations, who are just as culpable for the results. Sure, these people might not be called terrorists, because the FBI has to abide by laws of free speech, etc., but they are just as much a terrorist as any person looking to wage jihad. ---- See this article for the FBI's explanation of not calling a terrorist a terrorist: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-terrorism-label_us_594ae80ce4b0a3a837bcce51 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-terrorism-label_us_5...
- cestith 9y agoDid she really use a "No True Scotsman" argument to say the Scots don't need privacy and security?
- m0llusk 9y agoWe the people will let you know what we need, servant.