WhatsApp Says It Would Leave UK If Government Tried to Weaken Encryption

[MacProFCP]

WhatsApp has been blocked by China since 2017

My mistake.

Thanks for pointing this out. Since WhatsApp was purchased in 2014 and they were banned in 2017, for this exact reason, my entire post was inherently flawed and incorrect.

I therefore deleted in its entirety.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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.

These aren’t social media companies. But communication platforms jus as sms or phone calls.

The government is quite literally asking for the impossible. You can’t have privacy and security at the same time. Ether your communication is private or it’s not.

The UK government is just a bunch of authoritarian *******s who can’t differentiate their business from privacy while complaining. It’s the parents job to take care of their kids phones and not install anything. Not the government or companies who aren’t even advertising to them.

 

[laptech]

These aren’t social media companies. But communication platforms jus as sms or phone calls.

The government is quite literally asking for the impossible. You can’t have privacy and security at the same time. Ether your communication is private or it’s not.

The UK government is just a bunch of authoritarian *******s who can’t differentiate their business from privacy while complaining. It’s the parents job to take care of their kids phones and not install anything. Not the government or companies who aren’t even advertising to them.

They all come under the banner of 'social media' regardless if they are just a digital messaging company.

As for your other point, it has been proven many many times again that there are many parents in the UK who do not give a damn about their children and thus the government is forced to step in to protect the children.

 

[rp2011]

Oh please. No one applaud their stance just yet. They will bend. UNDOUBTABLY. It's a business. They are in it for the money, not the applause. Pretty sure shareholders want money and not applause.

 

[architect1337]

If Whatsapp leaves the UK, how will UK government ministers mock the populace?

 

[seek3r]

No but encryption allows crimes to be prolonged and/or go undetected. Encryption also allows criminals a safety net to avoid being detected/captured.

Outside any of the rest of this encryption also prevents a great deal of crime, you get that, right?

 

[H3boy]

The only people I've seen use WhatsApp are scammers. I don't really care what happens to WhatsApp.

 

[deevey]

My solution is the governments solution. What's yours? Basically you want criminals to be able to go about their criminal activity unchecked. Same goes for everyone else who down votes me, all of you want criminals to go unchecked because none of you can come up with a viable solution that will deter criminals.

Maybe you fail to realize that if encryption is turned off or any kind of backdoor included in a piece of software, that exploit exists for everyone - not just the government.

Here's my solution: If the government really wanted to do something useful they could simply mandate that all sim-cards be registered. As Whatsapp requires a working phone number it would make those crimes traceable. Whatsapp, on their side could require individuals to verify their number periodically and block VOIP numbers from registering on the app (other companies already do this).

Sure there is workarounds, most of which involve identity theft or forgery (also illegal) - but its a damn sight better than creating holes in the nations security and privacy by removing encryption.

You wanna know the real reason the government most likely wants a backdoor? To allow for realtime monitoring and data collection of 67M individuals without warrants.

 

[seek3r]

The only people I've seen use WhatsApp are scammers. I don't really care what happens to WhatsApp.

You havent spent much time outside the US, have you? It’s easily the dominant messaging app in Europe, no one uses SMS/iMessage/RCS if they can avoid it, whatsapp is the big kahuna.

 

[laptech]

.....

You wanna know the real reason the government want a backdoor? To allow for realtime monitoring and data collection of 67M individuals without warrants.

Back that up with evidence or remove it.

 

[H3boy]

The better question is "Why are UK parents allowing their kids to use Whatsapp and why are they not monitoring their children? It is not the government's job to parent your children.

 

[laptech]

Outside any of the rest of this encryption also prevents a great deal of crime, you get that, right?

and just how exactly does encryption prevent crime???

 

[seek3r]

Back that up with evidence or remove it.

“to constantly scan users for illegal material.”

Users Worldwide Said "Stop Scanning Us": 2022 in Review

The online conversations that bring us closer together can help build a world that’s more free, fair, and creative. But talking to each other only works when the people talking have their human rights respected, including their right to speak privately. The best tool to defend that right in the...

www.eff.org

 

[seek3r]

and just how exactly does encryption prevent crime???

I’m going to assume you’re not trolling… let’s use a simple example: what do you think keeps your online banking secure?

 

[laptech]

The better question is "Why are UK parents allowing their kids to use Whatsapp and why are they not monitoring their children? It is not the government's job to parent your children.

It is not the governments job to do a lot of things but they do it because they know humans can not be trusted.

 

[laptech]

“to constantly scan users for illegal material.”

Users Worldwide Said "Stop Scanning Us": 2022 in Review

The online conversations that bring us closer together can help build a world that’s more free, fair, and creative. But talking to each other only works when the people talking have their human rights respected, including their right to speak privately. The best tool to defend that right in the...

www.eff.org

not evidence because the article refers to 'governments' (the world) and a mandate from the European Union. The UK is no longer in the EU therefore the mandate is irrelevant to the UK. Next proof please and make sure its about the UK government and UK government only and not 'governments' around the world.

 

[Fred Zed]

Old Somalian proverb..” what corporations say isn’t what they do “.

 

[Fred Zed]

Iran is a liberal democracy?

Around the same level as the UK Gov.

 

[laptech]

I’m going to assume you’re not trolling… let’s use a simple example: what do you think keeps your online banking secure?

wrong context. This discussion is about messaging and thus examples should be in the same context. banking is a completely different context.

 

[seek3r]

wrong context. This discussion is about messaging and thus examples should be in the same context. banking is a completely different context.

No, it’s not. It’s the same fundamental transport….

 

[seek3r]

not evidence because the article refers to 'governments' (the world) and a mandate from the European Union. The UK is no longer in the EU therefore the mandate is irrelevant to the UK. Next proof please and make sure its about the UK government and UK government only and not 'governments' around the world.

My dude my quote was from the part talking about the UK. There’s even links. I think you’re trolling…

 

[floral]

But speaking during a U.K. visit in which he will meet legislators to discuss the government's internet regulation, Meta's head of WhatsApp, Will Cathcart, said it would refuse to comply if asked to weaken its encryption, since it would do so for all users.

Round of applause for WhatsApp!

 

[VulchR]

No but encryption allows crimes to be prolonged and/or go undetected. Encryption also allows criminals a safety net to avoid being detected/captured.

Recently the UK has had a series of sexual offences committed by police officers, including the rape and murder Sarah Everard. Maybe we should ban the police. [/sarcasm]

We can permanently and completely prevent crime by locking everybody up in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives. We can prevent miscarriages of justice and maximise freedom but just letting everybody do what they want. Of course neither of those extremes makes any sense, so we have to find a balance between deterring crime and preserving people's rights.

Remember that the UK does not have a written Constitution. The UK government is trying to withdraw for the European Court of Human Rights. I moved to the UK 30 years ago from the US. In the time that I have been here the right to protest has been restricted; the freedom of press has been restricted; freedom from double jeopardy has been abolished; the UK has installed an estimated 6 million security CCTV cameras putting it in second place behind the PRC in cameras per capita; freedom from self-incrimination was abolished until it was overturned as illegal; the so-called 'snoopers-charter', which would have allowed national and local government officials in addition to police to have access to internet history was put forward but thankfully not passed; etc. The list goes on and on. Blanket surveillance is as big a danger to us in the UK in the long run as crime or terrorism. If there is evidence of a crime, the authorities can get a search warrant. Otherwise, who I speak to, and what I do on the internet, is none of the government's damned business.

 

[seek3r]

Recently the UK has had a series of sexual offences committed by police officers, including the rape and murder Sarah Everard. Maybe we should ban the police. [/sarcasm]

We can permanently and completely prevent crime by locking everybody up in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives. We can prevent miscarriages of justice and maximise freedom but just letting everybody do what they want. Of course neither of those extremes makes any sense, so we have to find a balance between deterring crime and preserving people's rights.

Remember that the UK does not have a written Constitution. The UK government is trying to withdraw for the European Court of Human Rights. I moved to the UK 30 years ago from the US. In the time that I have been here the right to protest has been restricted; the freedom of press has been restricted; freedom from double jeopardy has been abolished; the UK has installed an estimated 6 million security CCTV cameras putting it in second place behind the PRC in cameras per capita; freedom from self-incrimination was abolished until it was overturned as illegal; the so-called 'snoopers-charter', which would have allowed national and local government officials in addition to police to have access to internet history was put forward but thankfully not passed; etc. The list goes on and on. Blanket surveillance is as big a danger to us in the UK in the long run as crime or terrorism. If there is evidence of a crime, the authorities can get a search warrant. Otherwise, who I speak to, and what I do on the internet, is none of the government's damned business.

I’m waiting for the proposal to put CCTV cameras inside everyone’s homes, with facial recognition and a national database. You know, to protect everyone from crime

 

[VulchR]

I’m waiting for the proposal to put CCTV cameras inside everyone’s homes, with facial recognition and a national database. You know, to protect everyone from crime

Well, the police are already trying it outside - see https://www.wired.co.uk/article/met-police-london-facial-recognition-test