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

[laptech]

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.

Just think how much worse the crime levels would be if the UK did not have all of that. If people in the UK behaved the way they should do (schooling and parenting never taught children to behave the way they do now and when they become adults) then the government would not need all this oversight and surveillance. The UK used to have high standards in society, how you spoke to people, how you behaved towards others and that has slowly eroded away as the country has become more multicultural. Even just today I read an article about a football player and their behavior on the pitch and it was noted that in his home country such behavior is the norm and thus accepted but here in the UK it is not and thus it's a 'cultural' difference as the article reporter put it. But that is for a different debate at a different time.

 

[Devyn89]

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.

It’s not our job to come up with strategies for catching criminals, that’s law enforcements job, they’re the experts, not me. I will not sacrifice my right to privacy because there’s sick people in the world that do messed up things. This kind of finger wagging does nothing to help anyone. I don’t want bad things to happen to people but I will not sacrifice a fundamental right to maybe catch people doing something wrong.

 

[deevey]

Back that up with evidence or remove it.

Edited if it makes you feel better.

 

[Devyn89]

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.

Appeal to emotion like this isn’t an argument. It’s only designed to provoke an emotional outrage.

 

[Somian]

Good that the same government is also pushing for the ability to sideload apps. Then any company “leaving” the market doesn’t mean anything because users could just sideload WhatsApp.

 

[deevey]

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

The government (probably) is also human, and therefore cannot be trusted.

 

[laptech]

Appeal to emotion like this isn’t an argument. It’s only designed to provoke an emotional outrage.

Provide a solution to the problem then instead of questioning the merits of my post. Let's see what you come up with in the next few hours that is a better solution to the governments.

 

[Devyn89]

Provide a solution to the problem then instead of questioning the merits of my post. Let's see what you come up with in the next few hours that is a better solution to the governments.

No, that’s law enforcement‘s job, they have the expertise not me. Just because I don’t have a solution doesn’t mean I don’t have a right to privacy, that’s a stupid argument.

 

[Somian]

The government (probably) is also human, and therefore cannot be trusted.

Exactly. Governments still prosecute abortions, have or still prosecute people because of their sexual orientation, deport people because of where they were born etc…

The only sensible thing to do is to allow people to hide as much information from governments as possible.

 

[laptech]

No, that’s law enforcement‘s job, they have the expertise not me. Just because I don’t have a solution doesn’t mean I don’t have a right to privacy, that’s a stupid argument.

It's very easy to complain and criticize about something isn't it, which is probably why many more people complain than provide solutions to things because finding solutions is hard and thus make excuses why they cannot do it.

 

[Devyn89]

It's very easy to complain and criticize about something isn't it, which is probably why many more people complain than provide solutions to things because finding solutions is hard and thus make excuses why they cannot do it.

Sure, but like I said it’s not my job to find solutions to those problems since I’m not in law enforcement. Should you have to hand over your dental records to the government because you don’t know a solution to ,asking kids brush their teeth everyday?

 

[genovelle]

No the UK is.

To those disliking my response, please understand that western democracies are liberal democracies, they always have been. They offer liberties unavailable in other forms of governance. Government meant for the people not for enriching the few who are willing burn it to the ground if they can’t hold 90% of the wealth.

 

[northernmunky]

It should probably be noted that the current government in power in the UK, is the Conservative party (also known as 'The Tories' and conservative being in the name). Not Labour (which is the liberal party) or the Liberal Democrats (liberal being in the name).

 

[NT1440]

It's very easy to complain and criticize about something isn't it, which is probably why many more people complain than provide solutions to things because finding solutions is hard and thus make excuses why they cannot do it.

Are you asserting that people on a web forum are bestowed with any type of power to actually implement a solution ? I had no idea MR was full of elected politicians.

Information is being shared, and people on the site have decided to voice their opinions on it. That’s what a forum is, this isn’t Parliment.

 

[Bazza1]

End to end encryption is all very well and good, but when senders need to know each other's telephone numbers to communicate in the first place, security and privacy are already flying out the window. Ditto apps like Signal.

Blackberry Messenger used to create a user code which is what you'd pass onto others to get in touch with you - your actual contact info remained private.

We let so much of our private info and / or usage habits out into the greater ether these days - not sure an encrypted message is going to stop anything...

 

[maxoakland]

Really shows you how a company *should* respond to government tyranny. Companies like Apple and Google fold over the *second* a tyrannical government asks them to because they don’t have values except make money

 

[maxoakland]

That is some STRONG leadership, very proud of WhatsApp right now! Contrast that with Apple's WEAK leadership, kowtowing to the EU USB-C requirement.

I was with you til your problem was wit the USB-C requirement and not all the privacy invasion they do in China

 

[seek3r]

Just think how much worse the crime levels would be if the UK did not have all of that. If people in the UK behaved the way they should do (schooling and parenting never taught children to behave the way they do now and when they become adults) then the government would not need all this oversight and surveillance. The UK used to have high standards in society, how you spoke to people, how you behaved towards others and that has slowly eroded away as the country has become more multicultural. Even just today I read an article about a football player and their behavior on the pitch and it was noted that in his home country such behavior is the norm and thus accepted but here in the UK it is not and thus it's a 'cultural' difference as the article reporter put it. But that is for a different debate at a different time.

You just went all little englander right there. You’re basically saying immigration, a multicultural country, and combine in a “kids these days” rant justify a surveillance state. Yes, it’s clearly all the folks who are different than you that just need to be spied on 24/7 just in case they do Bad Things (tm) 🙄. It’s also a particularly ironic set of positions when it involves the country that was the largest colonial power in history within living memory.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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

That might be the case in the Uk, but they are still not social media platforms anymore than Skype, teams, iMessage, sms, RCS or signal

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.

That might be the case but go after the parents neglecting their kids. We can’t infringe rights and freedoms indiscriminately for the “safety” of The few by making everyone else less safe as an effect.

It would essentially mean the end to private messaging as a legal thing.

It’s essentially the equivalent of: you must install a door in the back of your house with no lock Th at I can enter at any time without unlocking the secure front door. You essentially have an unlocked house for anyone to enter. The front door is just for show.

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.

My solution is the government gets a warrant with a court order. W shave checks and balances on the government because they shouldn’t do whatever it wants.

Encryption is ether active or it’s not. There is no in between. There’s no middle ground.

Encryption doesn’t only protect criminals, but it also protects everyone else in society from other criminals from compromising your private and sensitive data and information.

 

[_Spinn_]

This is one decision from Meta that I can agree with.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Just think how much worse the crime levels would be if the UK did not have all of that. If people in the UK behaved the way they should do (schooling and parenting never taught children to behave the way they do now and when they become adults) then the government would not need all this oversight and surveillance. The UK used to have high standards in society, how you spoke to people, how you behaved towards others and that has slowly eroded away as the country has become more multicultural. Even just today I read an article about a football player and their behavior on the pitch and it was noted that in his home country such behavior is the norm and thus accepted but here in the UK it is not and thus it's a 'cultural' difference as the article reporter put it. But that is for a different debate at a different time.

You have failed in trusting your neighbors and your government. Why isn’t continental Europe the same ******** as Uk? Not even swedenstan is as bad as UK.

Becoming a surveillance state isn’t a solution as we can see on UK and USA, all the spying but no security at the cost of privacy.

You are advocating for micromanaging more and more, and just like in communist states, you can’t control everything. And even if government meddling is good and needed sometimes, at a certain point it just does more harm than good and needs to be scaled back.

It's very easy to complain and criticize about something isn't it, which is probably why many more people complain than provide solutions to things because finding solutions is hard and thus make excuses why they cannot do it.

Sometimes the solution is the statues quo. Because no solution is better than a bad one. Having a warrant, inventing ways to decrypt the hardware by exploits etc.

Still the bottom line is private messaging and encrypted communication is vital for a democracy and a free society.

End to end encryption is all very well and good, but when senders need to know each other's telephone numbers to communicate in the first place, security and privacy are already flying out the window. Ditto apps like Signal.

Patently false. You giving up your number doesn’t compromise your security or privacy.

Your communication is still protected from outside observers or man in the middle attacks.

You must always know a persons number to communicate with them
By text or phone, it being needed for a secure communication doesn’t remove the privacy and security given by signal.

Blackberry Messenger used to create a user code which is what you'd pass onto others to get in touch with you - your actual contact info remained private.

And you can still get access to prepaid SIM cards or virtual numbers disconnected from you. Otherwise people wouldn’t be able to communicate securely in China or Russia. And we shouldn’t make it even harder in the west for absence of security that doesn’t actually materialize.

We let so much of our private info and / or usage habits out into the greater ether these days - not sure an encrypted message is going to stop anything...

Encrypted communication stops a lot. Just take your bank, everything is public, the address you have and the recipient. But the encryption makes sure what’s communicated is only shared between the two of you.

Just because we are Sharing more private information publicly, doesn’t mean everything should be publicly available.

You don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.

 

[Powerbooky]

It is totally irresponsible of social media companies who provide end to end encryption on their messaging platforms to allow criminal activity to be active on their platforms and say there is not much they can do about it because they would have to weaken their encryption to monitor if criminal activity is taking place on their platform and then to throw their toys out the pram when authorities come knocking on their door telling them they have to get their act together or else.

I hope you're being sarcastic here? EVERY communication tool can and is used for criminal activity, even something simple like a piece of paper. With your logic we should close down any company. Like companies selling hammers or the phone company. Because hammers and telephone lines can be used for criminal intend too.

In fact, even when all privacy restrictions would be lifted and the technology exists to monitor every platform, criminals will still find other ways (human nature). Also, a good monitoring system would backfire eventually for politicians and companies, disclosing their real intend.

 

[addamas]

„Encryption” and Meta will never work together.
It’s the same level of security and privacy as Google VPN

So many times friends got ads based on what they were talking during WhatsApp chatting

 

[laptech]

I hope you're being sarcastic here? EVERY communication tool can and is used for criminal activity, even something simple like a piece of paper. With your logic we should close down any company. Like companies selling hammers or the phone company. Because hammers and telephone lines can be used for criminal intend too.

In fact, even when all privacy restrictions would be lifted and the technology exists to monitor every platform, criminals will still find other ways (human nature). Also, a good monitoring system would backfire eventually for politicians and companies, disclosing their real intend.

No, just as with everyone else your taking things out of context to spin your own narrative. Not the UK government or I have said anything should be shut down but some form of checking/moderation should be in place to prevent criminality accruing on social media and messaging platforms. I do not think that is an unrealistic ask, do you?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

No, just as with everyone else you’re taking things out of context to spin your own narrative. Not the UK government or I have said anything should be shut down

No, but that is the consequences of unreasonable and impossible requirements. As it necessitates the elimination of encryption to comply.

but some form of checking/moderation should be in place to prevent criminality accruing on social media and messaging platforms.

Moderation of messaging platforms is a gross overstep by both government and corporations by violating people’s integrity and privacy.

I do not think that is an unrealistic ask, do you?

It is completely unrealistic, yes 100% because it’s not possible with encryption.
Social media is one thing, but communication mediums like iMessage /signal is completely different.

Do you want us to allow the police to walk in to your house, check your wallet and car any time of the day irrespective if you are home or give consent?

To someone who understands how encryption works makes this the equivalent of asking hammer and knife companies to monitor the user’s conversation and track their positions