What is he talking about here? WhatsApp uses the encryption technology from Signal. Is he saying Signal is not secure?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
WhatsApp Says It Would Leave UK If Government Tried to Weaken Encryption
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Don't worry, you lot will change your tune when there is more terrorist attacks with many people dying and it could have been prevented if the security services was able to look into the encrypted conversations of the terrorists. Don't worry, you lot will change your tune when your children are groomed and sexually abused by paedophile gangs because the police was not able to look into the encrypted conversations of the gangs and yes this does and has gone on. Asian grooming gangs used end to end encryption messaging system to avoid being spied upon. There was a big investigation into child sex gangs and paedophile gangs who distributed images of children and they were using end to end encryption messaging system to avoid being spied upon. People only want security and privacy when it does not affect them but when an incident does you bet they will be screaming from high heaven why more wasn't done to stop the criminal. Do not pretend it would be different because there is not a single one upon you who would stare me in the face knowing their loved ones are dead and say they still agree with end to end encryption not having any way to be spied upon, knowing their loved ones would still be alive if the security services were able to look in on encrypted conversations.
Down vote me all you like because deep down you know full well you are just fooling yourselves in accepting that criminals should be allowed to use encrypted messaging services with the knowledge they can do so freely and without being spied upon.
Down vote me all you like because deep down you know full well you are just fooling yourselves in accepting that criminals should be allowed to use encrypted messaging services with the knowledge they can do so freely and without being spied upon.
Alright, so, a lot of criminal activities are done using USDs and CADs and YENs and all sorts of world wide “Pesos”.
The criminals use these currencies that these countries printed themselves for all sorts of heinous activities ranging from low petty crimes up to the worst revolting nightmare inducing things by buying weapons, trading drugs, trafficking people, etc with said money… now what? “It’s totally irresponsible of all those countries”?
Also, it’s been like that since forever and all sorts of privacy invasion policies, taxes, more taxes and then some more have been put in place to try counteract with nowhere a positive outcome. See the crime ridden sections of LA, MA, NY, etc… heck, even the tax payers dollars are used to fund the defunding of all sorts of law enforcement.
I think this stance Whatsapp took is the way to go. Lately governments are creatively coming up with so many tricks to fine whatever they can, I call this yet another tax going with a different name.
To each their own I guess.
I see the difference, but if Apple can't squash the latter, how can they possibly squash the former?
If you recall Apple & FBI dispute of 2016, Apple “did go on the mat” and openly refused to slip a backdoor into iOS. There are lots of sources for it, but I think we can only use MR own links here, so this is one of them:
Apple Calls FBI Comments on Lack of Help Unlocking Florida Shooter's iPhone an 'Excuse to Weaken Encryption'
The United States FBI and Attorney General William Barr in January asked Apple to unlock the iPhones used in a mass shooting at a naval air station...
www.macrumors.com
WhatsApp standing up for privacy?
Meta/FB was literally founded upon anti-privacy and it retains as a fundamental element of its business model, selling personal data without explicit consent.
You’ll forgive me if I raise my eyebrow at WhatsApp’s threat here. Especially all the free publicity they get from the shenanigans of UK ministers using the platform for nefarious (and often childish) communication.
Still, the school mums who spam the platform with inane and neurotic daily missives on lost jumpers, pick up times after sports etc. will be very worried.
Meta/FB was literally founded upon anti-privacy and it retains as a fundamental element of its business model, selling personal data without explicit consent.
You’ll forgive me if I raise my eyebrow at WhatsApp’s threat here. Especially all the free publicity they get from the shenanigans of UK ministers using the platform for nefarious (and often childish) communication.
Still, the school mums who spam the platform with inane and neurotic daily missives on lost jumpers, pick up times after sports etc. will be very worried.
Do better detective work. Mass surveillance on innocent people is not how it should be.
Crimes were happening centuries before FaceBook / Meta existed, so encryption is not what causes crime to happen.
I can’t tell if you’re being obtuse or you genuinely don’t understand the benefit of international standards.
Hey Chazak,
I have a question about your attempt to gaslight and deflect from Tory crimes.
It would have taken you a minute to read my post, half a minute to think about it and then a couple of minutes to type your response.
How was it possible for you to reply to me within a minute?
Are you using a template or a bot with copypasta gaslighting to attack critics of Tories? We must ask how you could respond so fast because the notification of your reply came within a minute of refreshing the page after I posted.
No but encryption allows crimes to be prolonged and/or go undetected. Encryption also allows criminals a safety net to avoid being detected/captured.
We pay taxes for Police to deal with crime and criminals with the tools and means they got, without threatening our right to privacy.
Whilst I appear to be the only one on the other side of this privacy debate, please do not lump everyone into your point of view. There will be others who are not voicing their opinions who will not agree with you thus when you are writing to voice your own opinion/view on the matter, please phrase it as 'my right to privacy'. Thanks.
I am only expressing my own opinion and not others who may or may not agree, and so should you. You only represent yourself and not other people.
If the charity NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) get their claws into it and go pushing hard for it then it will happen because every time the NSPCC have been very vocal about something that the government should introduce/implement, the government have always caved in and done. The NSPCC is a very powerful charity in the UK and when they want something they get it.
The UK government have given social media companies enough warnings over the past 5 years telling them to improve child protections on their media platforms or the government will do it for them and each year the social media companies have shown contempt to the UK government by not improving child protection to a level that satisfies the government. This is not something that has hit the social media companies out of the blue, this is something that has been going on for years and something the social media companies have know about for years but have been very complacent in their duties on child protection. The social media companies were given enough rope to hang themselves and they have done just that. Now the government have stepped in and started to act which is what they warned the social media companies they would do if they did not get their act together.
Therefore stop blaming the government for doing what they are doing. The fault likes directly at the doors of the social media companies who were given EVERY opportunity over the years to come up with very credible solutions to the problem of how to protect children on their messaging platforms.
Child protection charities saw there was a problem. They spoke to the social media companies to come up with solutions and they were dismissive of the charities concerns because they blustered with the usual PR 'yes, we listened and will we make changes' but these changes dragged on and on and on so the child protection charities went to the UK government asking for their help because they were not getting it from the social media companies. The UK government gave them warnings to change and if they didn't the government would step in. A number of years later and here we are, the government having to step in and oh look, the social media companies are not happy that their business model is going to be affected due to something they refused to do when politely asked.
Therefore stop blaming the government for doing what they are doing. The fault likes directly at the doors of the social media companies who were given EVERY opportunity over the years to come up with very credible solutions to the problem of how to protect children on their messaging platforms.
Child protection charities saw there was a problem. They spoke to the social media companies to come up with solutions and they were dismissive of the charities concerns because they blustered with the usual PR 'yes, we listened and will we make changes' but these changes dragged on and on and on so the child protection charities went to the UK government asking for their help because they were not getting it from the social media companies. The UK government gave them warnings to change and if they didn't the government would step in. A number of years later and here we are, the government having to step in and oh look, the social media companies are not happy that their business model is going to be affected due to something they refused to do when politely asked.