8 ms·

WhatsApp could disappear from UK over privacy concerns, ministers told

104 points by grammers 3y ago

_joel 3y ago
Right of course, the same ministers that should have used the corporate systems for public discourse and instead did a load of dodgy deals on whatsapp on phones that they then 'lost' when asked for to gain evidence from.
red_trumpet 3y ago
> If users access WhatsApp through a web browser, the service can also collect information about websites visited before and after sending messages, Collins added. Whoa, how would they do that? Or is that just a british MP not knowing what he's talking about?
- gavaw 3y ago
  Through third-party cookies such as the Facebook pixel.
  - Semaphor 3y ago
    There have also always been tricks to get that information for popular sites, like explained in the Browser history revisited [0] paper. [0]: https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~dstefan/pubs/smith:2018:browser.pdf https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~dstefan/pubs/smith:2018:browser.pdf
- lozenge 3y ago
  Referrer header and rewriting links in messages?
Aromasin 3y ago
And if it goes, the "terrorists and child sexual abusers" they're writing this bill to target move to Telegram. Then whatever other application allows them to speak in private. The rest of the electorate is left massively inconvenienced for zero gain. My guess is they spent many thousands of hours in civil servant time to achieve something of no use to anyone. The incompetency of this government honestly astounds me.
- gavaw 3y ago
  As the article says, this bill is not targeting whatsapp specifically. Any other e2e-encrypted chat app will have to leave the UK as well. (Which Telegram isn't, btw)
  - Aromasin 3y ago
    I read that in the article and meant to scratch Signal off the list but never did. Fixed now. The idea that they could stop any criminal accessing some sort of alternative E2EE chat incredibly easily despite this bill is really a commentary on either how pathetic their technical advisory team is, or how little they listen to said team.
    - iinnPP 3y ago
      You mean people committing crimes will also commit a crime to commit those crimes? I never thought of that. Such clever criminals. The above statement is absurd right? I'm legitimately asking because I feel as though I must be missing something. Maybe it will stop a few folks and that is the victory? I think the new entries learning that the technology is working might be more numerous than the people who get stopped. Pedos read news don't they?
      - kevincox 3y ago
        This is the reason that the IRS asks you to declare your illegal income. It can be used as a tool to make catching crimes easier. If using encrypted communication is illegal then they can just ding all of the criminals for that, or their criminal activities are harder to operate because they need to hide existence of communication from law enforcement, not only the contents. If it is legal then they have to 1. identify who is doing other crimes 2. prove those crimes. So the more crimes that criminals need to perform to get their "valuable" crimes committed the more likely it is that they get caught for something. I don't believe at all that the means justify the ends, and I think the ends in this case will be only a very minor bother for criminals. But there is some logic to this concept.
    - 3y ago
tailspin2019 3y ago
Deliberately vague, overreaching legislation which leaves enough ambiguity to let the government basically do whatever the hell they want. The last bit of legislation they brought in with similar properties led - completely and utterly predictably - to the arresting of peaceful protestors who hadn't even started protesting yet [0] It was insanely obvious ahead of time that that would happen. And it's insanely obvious ahead of time again what's going to happen with this new legislation too. It makes me extremely angry how hostile the UK seems to be becoming to its own citizens as well as its overseas friends. Not everyone in the UK wants to treat everyone like a criminal until proven innocent, nor treat all foreigners as suspicious and unwelcome. Not even a majority now, retrospectively, even wanted to leave the EU. I increasingly do not recognise our government as one that is in any kind of alignment with my values as a UK citizen or even as just a decent human being. Edit: And don't even get me started on the crazy rhetoric coming from the National Conservatism event [1] </rant> [0] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/06/head-of-uks-leading-anti-monarchy-group-arrested-at-coronation-protest https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/06/head-of-uks-... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/16/terms-linked-antisemitism-uk-national-conservatism-event https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/16/terms-linke...
- ChrisRR 3y ago
  I thought all this shit would've disappeared when Theresa May stepped down
  - stevekemp 3y ago
    It comes and goes in cycles, all the way back to America's attempts with key-escrow (the "clipper chip"), and more. A few years pass, and somebody will say "But think of the children (abusers)", or "The terrorists can plot & plan, and we need to read their messages to stop that".
- iinnPP 3y ago
  Out of curiosity and with zero background knowledge on what you have communicated here I have a question. Was there a denial that there would be a problem from mainstream sources? If so, was the cat out of the bag moment followed by 'nuthin burger' from the same sources? That's what seems to happen in Canada at least.
adammarples 3y ago
The "privacy concerns" are that they're concerned that we have privacy at all
- lisrjflksdjfi 3y ago
  almost. You don't have privacy in either case. Case in the article is the company is sharing data with US agencies only. The only government doing the right thing on this front is France. They contribute and host their own Matrix instance for government use. If you see countries like India, Brasil, Nigeria... They pretty much replaced their telephone infrastructure with Whatsapp. Like it or not, the telephone infra gives law enforcement access to all metadata, in some cases without a warrant, and allow wiretap with a warrant. Whatsapp gives both these powers to US agencies and not local ones. And thats what the UK have a problem with.
  - effie 3y ago
    > Whatsapp gives both these powers to US agencies and not local ones. Source?
ChrisRR 3y ago
As if terrorists really care about the legality of the app they're using.
- tombert 3y ago
  Of course they don't, but if it's illegal then things get removed from app stores and the like, making it hard to actually install. Obviously on Android there's sideloading, even on iOS to a lesser extent, but I think the idea is that if there's any technical hurdle required to overcome this limitation, then the bad people will be less likely to use the workarounds. Obviously some percentage of criminals will do these workarounds, and I suspect the lawmakers even know that, but I think the idea is that any percentage reduction of criminals being able hide stuff is positive. To be 100% clear, I think this is a very bad proposal; I think E2E encryption is important and should be protected, not threatened, I'm just saying that the rationale isn't completely incompetent.
  - zirgs 3y ago
    If the app is not illegal elsewhere then sideloading it is trivial. The UK can't force app stores in other countries to take down e2e communication apps. Repos like F-Droid will keep hosting them.
    - effie 3y ago
      "Sideloading" is the likely next target. "We have to protect our people from dangerous Russian hackers spying on people, so we will make sure only clean and safe applications from $CORPSTORE are used".
      - zirgs 3y ago
        That means that custom Android roms should be banned. Oh and desktop PCs too, because you can "sideload" anything there. Banning sideloading is unrealistic.
        3y ago
bookofjoe 3y ago
dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35869040 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35869040
Delphiza 3y ago
The good thing about making this about WhatsApp is that UK MPs and most political hangers-on use WhatsApp *extensively*. If opponents point out that government scheming, speaker circuit bookings, fast-track lanes for government contracts, and the like will become more difficult, then maybe MPs will reconsider. Unencrypted and on-the-public-record political party and government communications will worry MPs more than it worries "terrorists and paedos".
- jgust 3y ago
  That sounds like an argument for banning WhatsApp in favor of transparency...
  - Delphiza 3y ago
    The UK government will never pass legislation to increase transparency to their own conduct (I doubt any government would), so encryption and opacity will remain.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > The UK government will never pass legislation to increase transparency to their own conduct (I doubt any government would) Lots of governments do.
      - dgb23 3y ago
        Can you share more? I'm interested in both success stories and failed attempts.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        The whole set of overlapping classes of “freedom of information”, “open meeting”, and “sunshine”/“digital sunshine” laws are all laws adopted by various jurisdictions directed at the transparency of government operations and official conduct within certain bounds.
LatteLazy 3y ago
I niavely hoped this nonsense would disappear when Theresa May fell. I think it has more support than I realised in the Tory right.
TechBro8615 3y ago
I still haven't accepted the "new" WhatsApp privacy policy. It's been over a year, and every time I open the app I just click the "X" to close the prompt asking me to accept it. I'm wondering how long this can continue...
- WA 3y ago
  Weird, because mine stopped bothering me. I wonder if I accidentally tapped "Yes" after it popped up unexpectedly.
roydivision 3y ago
Does anyone have a good comprehensive source for arguments against such a move, books or articles? I'd like to bolster my own stance on the subject.
account-5 3y ago
My interpretation from the article is they're not after e2ee they're after the unencryted end points. That'll be the technical measures they're after. Something like the ill-fated apple scanning all media before anything.
sjy 3y ago
An excellent source of information on the motives of UK legislators for passing this legislation, other than the incompetence and malice hypothesised in the other comments, is this parliamentary research briefing from 2022 [1], which summarises the previous five years of consultation and links to a heap of previous white papers and critical responses. The "news" is that on 17 April 2023, the heads of WhatsApp, Signal and other companies published an open letter questioning "the Government's stated intention to protect end-to-end encryption and respect the human right to privacy" [2], and on 27 April 2023, a member of the House of Lords said that "services such as WhatsApp will potentially leave the UK" [3] if the Bill is passed. The debate is actually pretty informed and a refreshing antidote to the cynicism about democracy expressed elsewhere, until you recall that the House of Lords is not that democratic. [1]: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9506/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-... [2]: https://blog.whatsapp.com/an-open-letter https://blog.whatsapp.com/an-open-letter [3]: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-04-27/debates/AC7C700F-39F3-406C-854C-0EA6F3E3E911/OnlineSafetyBill#contribution-BE0861B9-7976-47A7-BE8D-C8AC25BBB896 https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-04-27/debates/AC7C7...

104 points by grammers 3y ago

Right of course, the same ministers that should have used the corporate systems for public discourse and instead did a load of dodgy deals on whatsapp on phones that they then 'lost' when asked for to gain evidence from.

red_trumpet 3y ago

> If users access WhatsApp through a web browser, the service can also collect information about websites visited before and after sending messages, Collins added. Whoa, how would they do that? Or is that just a british MP not knowing what he's talking about?

gavaw 3y ago
Through third-party cookies such as the Facebook pixel.
- Semaphor 3y ago
  There have also always been tricks to get that information for popular sites, like explained in the Browser history revisited [0] paper. [0]: https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~dstefan/pubs/smith:2018:browser.pdf https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~dstefan/pubs/smith:2018:browser.pdf
lozenge 3y ago
Referrer header and rewriting links in messages?

Aromasin 3y ago

And if it goes, the "terrorists and child sexual abusers" they're writing this bill to target move to Telegram. Then whatever other application allows them to speak in private. The rest of the electorate is left massively inconvenienced for zero gain. My guess is they spent many thousands of hours in civil servant time to achieve something of no use to anyone. The incompetency of this government honestly astounds me.

gavaw 3y ago
As the article says, this bill is not targeting whatsapp specifically. Any other e2e-encrypted chat app will have to leave the UK as well. (Which Telegram isn't, btw)
- Aromasin 3y ago
  I read that in the article and meant to scratch Signal off the list but never did. Fixed now. The idea that they could stop any criminal accessing some sort of alternative E2EE chat incredibly easily despite this bill is really a commentary on either how pathetic their technical advisory team is, or how little they listen to said team.
  - iinnPP 3y ago
    You mean people committing crimes will also commit a crime to commit those crimes? I never thought of that. Such clever criminals. The above statement is absurd right? I'm legitimately asking because I feel as though I must be missing something. Maybe it will stop a few folks and that is the victory? I think the new entries learning that the technology is working might be more numerous than the people who get stopped. Pedos read news don't they?
    - kevincox 3y ago
      This is the reason that the IRS asks you to declare your illegal income. It can be used as a tool to make catching crimes easier. If using encrypted communication is illegal then they can just ding all of the criminals for that, or their criminal activities are harder to operate because they need to hide existence of communication from law enforcement, not only the contents. If it is legal then they have to 1. identify who is doing other crimes 2. prove those crimes. So the more crimes that criminals need to perform to get their "valuable" crimes committed the more likely it is that they get caught for something. I don't believe at all that the means justify the ends, and I think the ends in this case will be only a very minor bother for criminals. But there is some logic to this concept.
  - 3y ago

tailspin2019 3y ago

Deliberately vague, overreaching legislation which leaves enough ambiguity to let the government basically do whatever the hell they want. The last bit of legislation they brought in with similar properties led - completely and utterly predictably - to the arresting of peaceful protestors who hadn't even started protesting yet [0] It was insanely obvious ahead of time that that would happen. And it's insanely obvious ahead of time again what's going to happen with this new legislation too. It makes me extremely angry how hostile the UK seems to be becoming to its own citizens as well as its overseas friends. Not everyone in the UK wants to treat everyone like a criminal until proven innocent, nor treat all foreigners as suspicious and unwelcome. Not even a majority now, retrospectively, even wanted to leave the EU. I increasingly do not recognise our government as one that is in any kind of alignment with my values as a UK citizen or even as just a decent human being. Edit: And don't even get me started on the crazy rhetoric coming from the National Conservatism event [1] </rant> [0] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/06/head-of-uks-leading-anti-monarchy-group-arrested-at-coronation-protest https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/06/head-of-uks-... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/16/terms-linked-antisemitism-uk-national-conservatism-event https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/16/terms-linke...

ChrisRR 3y ago
I thought all this shit would've disappeared when Theresa May stepped down
- stevekemp 3y ago
  It comes and goes in cycles, all the way back to America's attempts with key-escrow (the "clipper chip"), and more. A few years pass, and somebody will say "But think of the children (abusers)", or "The terrorists can plot & plan, and we need to read their messages to stop that".
iinnPP 3y ago
Out of curiosity and with zero background knowledge on what you have communicated here I have a question. Was there a denial that there would be a problem from mainstream sources? If so, was the cat out of the bag moment followed by 'nuthin burger' from the same sources? That's what seems to happen in Canada at least.

adammarples 3y ago

The "privacy concerns" are that they're concerned that we have privacy at all

lisrjflksdjfi 3y ago
almost. You don't have privacy in either case. Case in the article is the company is sharing data with US agencies only. The only government doing the right thing on this front is France. They contribute and host their own Matrix instance for government use. If you see countries like India, Brasil, Nigeria... They pretty much replaced their telephone infrastructure with Whatsapp. Like it or not, the telephone infra gives law enforcement access to all metadata, in some cases without a warrant, and allow wiretap with a warrant. Whatsapp gives both these powers to US agencies and not local ones. And thats what the UK have a problem with.
- effie 3y ago
  > Whatsapp gives both these powers to US agencies and not local ones. Source?

ChrisRR 3y ago

As if terrorists really care about the legality of the app they're using.

tombert 3y ago
Of course they don't, but if it's illegal then things get removed from app stores and the like, making it hard to actually install. Obviously on Android there's sideloading, even on iOS to a lesser extent, but I think the idea is that if there's any technical hurdle required to overcome this limitation, then the bad people will be less likely to use the workarounds. Obviously some percentage of criminals will do these workarounds, and I suspect the lawmakers even know that, but I think the idea is that any percentage reduction of criminals being able hide stuff is positive. To be 100% clear, I think this is a very bad proposal; I think E2E encryption is important and should be protected, not threatened, I'm just saying that the rationale isn't completely incompetent.
- zirgs 3y ago
  If the app is not illegal elsewhere then sideloading it is trivial. The UK can't force app stores in other countries to take down e2e communication apps. Repos like F-Droid will keep hosting them.
  - effie 3y ago
    "Sideloading" is the likely next target. "We have to protect our people from dangerous Russian hackers spying on people, so we will make sure only clean and safe applications from $CORPSTORE are used".
    - zirgs 3y ago
      That means that custom Android roms should be banned. Oh and desktop PCs too, because you can "sideload" anything there. Banning sideloading is unrealistic.
      - 3y ago

bookofjoe 3y ago

dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35869040 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35869040

Delphiza 3y ago

The good thing about making this about WhatsApp is that UK MPs and most political hangers-on use WhatsApp *extensively*. If opponents point out that government scheming, speaker circuit bookings, fast-track lanes for government contracts, and the like will become more difficult, then maybe MPs will reconsider. Unencrypted and on-the-public-record political party and government communications will worry MPs more than it worries "terrorists and paedos".

jgust 3y ago
That sounds like an argument for banning WhatsApp in favor of transparency...
- Delphiza 3y ago
  The UK government will never pass legislation to increase transparency to their own conduct (I doubt any government would), so encryption and opacity will remain.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > The UK government will never pass legislation to increase transparency to their own conduct (I doubt any government would) Lots of governments do.
    - dgb23 3y ago
      Can you share more? I'm interested in both success stories and failed attempts.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        The whole set of overlapping classes of “freedom of information”, “open meeting”, and “sunshine”/“digital sunshine” laws are all laws adopted by various jurisdictions directed at the transparency of government operations and official conduct within certain bounds.

LatteLazy 3y ago

I niavely hoped this nonsense would disappear when Theresa May fell. I think it has more support than I realised in the Tory right.

TechBro8615 3y ago

I still haven't accepted the "new" WhatsApp privacy policy. It's been over a year, and every time I open the app I just click the "X" to close the prompt asking me to accept it. I'm wondering how long this can continue...

WA 3y ago
Weird, because mine stopped bothering me. I wonder if I accidentally tapped "Yes" after it popped up unexpectedly.

roydivision 3y ago

Does anyone have a good comprehensive source for arguments against such a move, books or articles? I'd like to bolster my own stance on the subject.

account-5 3y ago

My interpretation from the article is they're not after e2ee they're after the unencryted end points. That'll be the technical measures they're after. Something like the ill-fated apple scanning all media before anything.

sjy 3y ago

An excellent source of information on the motives of UK legislators for passing this legislation, other than the incompetence and malice hypothesised in the other comments, is this parliamentary research briefing from 2022 [1], which summarises the previous five years of consultation and links to a heap of previous white papers and critical responses. The "news" is that on 17 April 2023, the heads of WhatsApp, Signal and other companies published an open letter questioning "the Government's stated intention to protect end-to-end encryption and respect the human right to privacy" [2], and on 27 April 2023, a member of the House of Lords said that "services such as WhatsApp will potentially leave the UK" [3] if the Bill is passed. The debate is actually pretty informed and a refreshing antidote to the cynicism about democracy expressed elsewhere, until you recall that the House of Lords is not that democratic. [1]: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9506/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-... [2]: https://blog.whatsapp.com/an-open-letter https://blog.whatsapp.com/an-open-letter [3]: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-04-27/debates/AC7C700F-39F3-406C-854C-0EA6F3E3E911/OnlineSafetyBill#contribution-BE0861B9-7976-47A7-BE8D-C8AC25BBB896 https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-04-27/debates/AC7C7...