4 ms·

If you remove the word "encrypted" from this sentence in the Bloomberg article: Social media platforms based in the U.S. including Facebook and WhatsApp will b

If you remove the word "encrypted" from this sentence in the Bloomberg article: Social media platforms based in the U.S. including Facebook and WhatsApp will be forced to share users’ encrypted messages with British police under a new treaty between the two countries, according to a person familiar with the matter. Then the article matches Stamos's account entirely. With the word "encrypted," the article makes no sense – it would take legislation to force US companies to build backdoors to encryption, not an international accord. I agree the HN headline could be better (my fault!) - but my money is on another Bloomberg security reporting error. Hope they actually issue a correction this time...

Marsymars 7y ago
> With the word "encrypted," the article makes no sense – it would take legislation to force US companies to build backdoors to encryption, not an international accord. It makes sense if you take it to mean that WhatsApp with share the encrypted messages, without any means to decrypt. It's not a very meaningful statement though, and will only confuse people.
- larkeith 7y ago
  If that's truly what they mean, that's far more than confusing - it's flat-out deceptive.
ncmncm 7y ago
The resolution is simple. Originally, WhatsApp encrypted end-to-end, and they had no ability to examine traffic. Now, it is encrypted between you and the server, decrypted and scanned, and then re-encrypted for transmission. If you want end-to-end encryption, you will need to use something else.
- eloff 7y ago
  It is still encrypted end-to-end. I don't know where you're getting your information from.
fencepost 7y ago
it would take legislation to force US companies to build backdoors to encryption, not an international accord. Would it? It might take Congress ratifying a treaty, but at that point doesn't it take the force of law? ISTR that this has been one of the big arguments over things like the TPP with Investor - State disputes (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settl...) and assorted copyright measures being placed in treaty proposals instead of being addressed legislatively. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" (emphasis added) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_St... Edit: fix italics
- wbl 7y ago
  Treaties are generally not self executing. It's also very hard to get ratification for various political reasons.
nitemice 7y ago
> it would take legislation to force US companies to build backdoors to encryption, not an international accord Such a law already exists in Australia, so I don't think it's out of the question.

Marsymars 7y ago

> With the word "encrypted," the article makes no sense – it would take legislation to force US companies to build backdoors to encryption, not an international accord. It makes sense if you take it to mean that WhatsApp with share the encrypted messages, without any means to decrypt. It's not a very meaningful statement though, and will only confuse people.

larkeith 7y ago
If that's truly what they mean, that's far more than confusing - it's flat-out deceptive.

ncmncm 7y ago

The resolution is simple. Originally, WhatsApp encrypted end-to-end, and they had no ability to examine traffic. Now, it is encrypted between you and the server, decrypted and scanned, and then re-encrypted for transmission. If you want end-to-end encryption, you will need to use something else.

eloff 7y ago
It is still encrypted end-to-end. I don't know where you're getting your information from.

fencepost 7y ago

it would take legislation to force US companies to build backdoors to encryption, not an international accord. Would it? It might take Congress ratifying a treaty, but at that point doesn't it take the force of law? ISTR that this has been one of the big arguments over things like the TPP with Investor - State disputes (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settl...) and assorted copyright measures being placed in treaty proposals instead of being addressed legislatively. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" (emphasis added) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_St... Edit: fix italics

wbl 7y ago
Treaties are generally not self executing. It's also very hard to get ratification for various political reasons.

nitemice 7y ago

> it would take legislation to force US companies to build backdoors to encryption, not an international accord Such a law already exists in Australia, so I don't think it's out of the question.