14 ms·

UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable

• singold 9y ago
  Well, she could start herself publishing all her emails, how can we know she isn't a covert terrorist?
• tinus_hn 9y ago
  How would that have prevented anything? As if they'd have responded within 2 minutes to some guy sending weird messages.
  • makomk 9y ago
    The message he sent right before the attack will likely not have been his first communication about it. There's been a pattern of Isis operatives abroad guiding and supporting terrorists in detail via end-to-end encrypted messaging for weeks or months, right up until the moment they attack: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/world/asia/isis-messaging-app-terror-plot.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/world/asia/isis-messaging... Presumably the British police are assuming that this is like those previous attacks, but they haven't managed to obtain the actual message contents after the fact this time around for some reason.
    • GordonS 9y ago
      Come on. If this was really ISIS, then we plainly have nothing to fear. My bet is that he's just a random crazy, but of course these days it suits the political narrative to brand such people 'terrorists' to stoke public fear
      • DanBC 9y ago
        Stop tossing out mental health as a reason. There's nothing to say he had mental illness, and you cause harm to people with mental illness when you incorrectly link violence to mental illness.
        • GordonS 9y ago
          I used the word 'crazy', rather than mentioning mental health issues. 'Crazy' does not just refer to people with mental health issues, if refers to irrational acts. To expand on my point, some of these small-scale 'terrorist' attacks show very little evidence of being coherently planned, and it's difficult to believe that an organised terrorist group is behind them. It seems more likely that some of these acts were performed by people acting alone, or vulnerable people provoked to it - and yes, some of these people may well be mentally ill; that hardly means they cannot be capable of violence.
  • visarga 9y ago
    Suppose they intercept WhatsApp. The need to react to each suspicious message within the minute, and be perfectly efficient in catching terrorists while avoiding innocents. Of course they would need to intercept all other communication services, including home-made ones.
• bvwiqvqebui 9y ago
  what if the guy read a book and agreed with it because he was an sad angry teenager with no life
  • k_sze 9y ago
    Then the obvious answer is to ban books, right? Right?
    • bigbugbag 9y ago
      This is a thing in France.
  • chippy 9y ago
    They have access to library records because of that scenario. They would be able to access online bookstore records. The book may not have been purchased of course, or may have been banned for sale in a country - many illegal copies of books were made in Communist states in the 80s for that reason.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  • Symbiote 9y ago
    Possession of The Anarchist Cookbook has been used as evidence against terrorist suspects in Britain, and also as a crime itself, "Possession of terrorist material". In the latter case, the 17 year old's argument was pretty much what you suggest, and he was cleared. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7030096.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7030096.stm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchist_Cookbook#Legality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchist_Cookbook#Legalit...
• callesgg 9y ago
  How can it be acceptable to say shit like this when you have such a position within the government.
  • yellow_viper 9y ago
    Because we've accepted it. We know the government is watching us 24/7 and no one cares. This is the new norm. Stories like this fill me with a slight bit of hope that encryption works
    • aluhut 9y ago
      I wonder how they are not even busy explaining how this could happen with all that surveillance already in place. I mean no camera jumped down the pole to stop the car...
      • tonyedgecombe 9y ago
        She did admit during the interview that these incidents couldn't be completely stopped.
        • aluhut 9y ago
          The point is, that they can't be stopped at all. There is a way to suspect someone may at some point, which is what the UK security apparatus is aiming for but this kind of profiling will end up being a psychological analysis of whole groups of the population. The results won't be great for any of us.
  • kristofferR 9y ago
    Britain is well known around the world for not caring about privacy/surveillance.
    • jansho 9y ago
      And the most CCTV-ed society.
• orian 9y ago
  How do they want to prevent someone from creating his own end-to-end encryption app? It may use other protocols to encode content (images, tweets, fb posts etc.). For me it seems to be more in a direction of so called "Big Brother" than real counter-terrorism.
  • OJFord 9y ago
    You're forgetting that this has always been possible, and not all adversaries are capable, bother, or aware of what they could do. I expect it's quite likely this one was using WhatsApp because that's what he used; not because he read about its end-to-end encryption.
  • loup-vaillant 9y ago
    > How do they want to prevent someone from creating his own end-to-end encryption app? It's basically impossible. One can also use steganography to hide messages in lolcat pictures, or music files. The only way to prevent this, I think, is to start a totalitarian surveillance state where using Free or custom software or hardware is punishable by death. Even then, I'm not sure this will be enough.
    • thehardsphere 9y ago
      Given that even the most totalitarian states eventually fail and don't ever have complete and total control over the entire populace, I think you're correct that it will not be enough. What they really need is to invent time travel, and murder Ada Lovelace.
      • M_Grey 9y ago
        That should be a canonical test for the implausibility of any policy. "Do we need to invent a time machine for this to work?"
  • CJefferson 9y ago
    The same way you prevent anything.. they make it illegal for people in the UK to make, or use, such products. Don't think we can "tech" our way out of this.
• dijit 9y ago
  "He sent an encrypted message from whatsapp" Yes, and then he went and did something stupid with easily accessible tools and acted alone. You might have an argument if he was part of a coordinated attack against something but lone-wolf terrorism has always been defined as unpreventable by security services such as SIS. Once radicalised it's impossible to prevent individuals doing stupid stuff. The only thing she has revealed his the conservative parties desire for totalitarian control. :(
  • kelnos 9y ago
    > You might have an argument if he was part of a coordinated attack No. Even ignoring the erosion of privacy angle, this just doesn't work. Outlaw encryption, and only outlaws will use encryption. Provide government backdoors into the popular commercial messaging apps, and people coordinating terror attacks will just use custom, unknown, private encrypted messaging apps.
    • dijit 9y ago
      I'm going to play devils advocate here, I also dislike the erosion of privacy (enough that I even left the UK). But you _can_ make the argument that if only outlaws use encryption then they're painting a target on their back, which leads to greater scrutiny by security services. This is reasonably achieved by the current dragnet surveillance systems in place, along with ISP's logging everything. I don't agree with it, of course I don't, but that's probably an angle people could take- But the angle Amber Rudd took is even more starved of sense. It's like she didn't ask the appropriate question: "What could we have done to prevent this attack" and the follow up "If we had direct access to his phone and all of his communication information, what could we have caught" and the answer is _nothing_. He used tools commonly available to him, acted alone, probably told nobody. Anyway, tell the bad guys you're watching the comms and they'll figure out how to talk, they're motivated and smart.
      • tonyedgecombe 9y ago
        "What could we have done to prevent this attack" Actually there is a lot they could have done to help him in his obviously troubled life but that doesn't fit with conservative ideology.
• visarga 9y ago
  > "That is my view - it is completely unacceptable, there should be no place for terrorists to hide." I am sure a ban on encryption would work. Hey, guys, I just had a great idea. Let's ban bombs, knifes, and driving into people. That would fix the terrorism problem. Once it is illegal, no terrorist would dare do it!!! I'm wondering why Churchill didn't think to ban the Enigma machine. If only England was led by smart people like the British interior minister...
  • pfortuny 9y ago
    Well, he wants to ban secret hiding places, not bombs. I am sure that might work. Come to think of it... Sorry, he is a she.
    • mavdi 9y ago
      I'll be surprised if you don't get a full HN ban for this.
  • Tharkun 9y ago
    While we're at it, can we also ban crime? That'd be great.
    • fauigerzigerk 9y ago
      Couldn't we just ban everything illegal outright? Why take so many detours?
      • userbinator 9y ago
        While we're at it, let's just ban living. Everyone born could become a criminal, right? </s>
  • erelde 9y ago
    It's, in my view, more akin to trying to ban mathematics in a world in which mathematics exist. Tools and weapons don't exist indenpently from us, mathematics do.
• hanselot 9y ago
  How difficult would it be for these so called terrorists to develop their own end to end encrypted app? Perhaps something masquerading as something common like any port under 1000? It is feasible that the elimination of whatsapp/telegram/signal encryption would just lead to a way more complicated encryption system developed internally to these organisations.
  • fooker 9y ago
    You just described a rather common programming assignment at most schools..
  • makomk 9y ago
    Not that difficult, but it'd almost certainly have major security flaws that GHCQ and the NSA could exploit, because homebrew end-to-end encryption tends to. The bigger problem is that merely using an Isis-branded chat application is the equivalent of sending a text message to the security services saying "hello, I'm a potential terrorist, please pay special attention to my every movement". Even the Tor project hasn't actually managed to reliably disguise their protocol as something else, and they have a bunch of smart people working on it with the advantage that countries tend to reveal the fact they've been detected through blocking rather than just quietly monitoring the people using it and rounding them up the moment they try something.
    • goodplay 9y ago
      I generally agree, but intelligence groups have to first find the signal they want to monitor. Modern steganography techniques coupled with the free randomness you get from the physical world gives you much to work with. And that's assuming common tech will be used. Also, designing a secure general purpose messaging system is much harder that designing a system tailored for a specific use case. Banning encryption by law is like demanding, loudly, that people not talk behind your back. Some will listen, and some will not. Only legitimate users and use cases will suffer.
      • tormeh 9y ago
• royka118 9y ago
  Is it technically feasible to have a back door and still be `end to end` encrypted ?
  • joshvm 9y ago
    Yes, this was revealed by the recent agency leaks. Cracking end to end encryption is still extremely difficult (currently impossible?). It's much easier to get root on a target's phone and run a keylogger or break into the app. The messages are still end-end encrypted, but you can sniff them before they're sent and after they're received since they're shown to the user in plaintext.
    • Neliquat 9y ago
      But then the side channel (pre enc info) is also sent, using different encryption? Otherwise, just as broken.
  • drcross 9y ago
    The recent wikileaks documents from the CIA say that yes it is possibly but instead of blanket backdoor they have to be specifically targeted. Whether that's the current state of affairs of not, I dont know.
  • pestaa 9y ago
    Yes, but the back door must be placed on either `end`, so an eavesdropper needs to intercept communication before encryption or after decryption.
  • ktta 9y ago
    The definition of end-to-end encryption is that the decryption keys are only available to the client. Now your question asks the question of where the backdoor should be. It is feasible. The backdoor should be at a very low level (not say a sandboxed application) from which basically nothing can hide on the device.
  • sergior 9y ago
    Yes, you can encrypt messages by yourself and that way it doesn't matter if the mean of communication is insecure.
• drcross 9y ago
  It's an incredibly foolish thing for a minister to suggest. She demonstrates a complete lack of understanding on the subject and has commited political seppuku. Has she never read Orwell, Huxley, seen articles about tyrannical governments or even heard about the reasons the US constitution was drawn up?
  • grey-area 9y ago
    has commited political seppuku Since the current prime minister supports her, I doubt it. It's an absurd position, but not without support in the current administration, just like her outspoken views on immigration.
    • vidarh 9y ago
      Specifically the current PM is as bad or worse.
    • GordonS 9y ago
      > Since the current prime minister supports her And, I'm sorry to say, a large chunk of the public, who have for years been force fed rubbish from politicians and the media alike about the huge terrorist threat that threatens to destroy our country (when in reality just about anything else you can think of is more of a threat than the odd crazy with a knife and car...)
• Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
  > She said it was a case of getting together "the best people who understand the technology, who understand the necessary hashtags" Our Government is an absolute disgrace; and unfortunately, one to which there is currently no credible, strong opposition. (from https://www.buzzfeed.com/matthewchampion/necessary-hashtags https://www.buzzfeed.com/matthewchampion/necessary-hashtags)
  • anon1385 9y ago
    If you are referring to the current state of the Labour party then that's irrelevant. Even when Labour were "strong" opposition, or were in power with large majorities, they have had very authoritarian positions on this kind of thing. Labour were supporters of the recent IP Bill (it actually applied restrictions to some of the crazy powers the last Labour government gave to the police, which gives you an indication of their general position on these things). Labour have had authoritarian positions on crime and policing issues since Blair became shadow Home Secretary (1992). It has been part of their 'tough on crime' strategy of attacking the Conservatives from the right since that point and was a core part of the New Labour strategy. The only thing a "stronger" Labour opposition would get you in this situation is a parliament even more united in support for restrictions on encryption.
    • ue_ 9y ago
      It's a damn shame as a Communist myself to agree with Labour on various issues, but so vehemently disagree with them on the abstention or even outright support of spying bills.
  • pizza 9y ago
    The emperor's new hashtags..
  • imron 9y ago
    And if the best people who understand the technology and 'all the necessary hashtags' say it can't be done? Because that's where we're at currently.
• derpadelt 9y ago
  For two decades I've been waiting for popular support for a complete or at least Clipper-chip-style encryption ban in the "free world". It always was on the other far end of the spectrum, directly oppsite questions like IV/nonce choice, PRNG initialization flaws, RSA attack vectors. I have great fear for the freedom and living standard of my kids when I read these top-level news pieces. We stand a real test and we will have to argue against hatred, fear and terrorism. Let's just hope our leaders have no-nonsense advisors as well as those that inspire such news.
• mattbee 9y ago
  Amber Rudd is the UK's Home Secretary not just any minister. "We need to make sure that our intelligence services have the ability to get into situations like encrypted Whatsapp." She has said she is "calling in" technology companies this week to try to "deliver a solution". Marr asks if they refuse to do that, will you legislate to force them to change? She's not drawn on that. Interview is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08l62r7/the-andrew-marr-show-26032017 http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08l62r7/the-andrew-mar... [from 45:18] I understood that UK IP Bill already mean that she already has the ability to e.g. demand a backdoored version of Whatsapp be sent to a target device, but that's not covered in the interview. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/30/investigatory_powers_act_backdoors/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/30/investigatory_power...
  • Symbiote 9y ago
    From [1], linked elsewhere in this discussion, and referring to a failed plot in India: "The Hindi-speaking handler guiding the men in Hyderabad also insisted on using a kaleidoscope of encrypted messaging applications, with Mr. Yazdani instructed to hop between apps so that even if one message history was discovered and cracked, it would reveal only a portion of their handiwork." "the handler taught Mr. Yazdani how to use the Tails operating system, which is contained on a USB stick and allows a user to boot up a computer from the external device and use it without leaving a trace on the hard drive." Even if the British government is successful with WhatsApp, can they do much against free, open source tools? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/world/asia/isis-messaging-app-terror-plot.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/world/asia/isis-messaging...
    • zzzcpan 9y ago
      "Even if the British government is successful with WhatsApp, can they do much against free, open source tools?" Why would they care about open source tools and niche use of encryption? Of course they don't. They are after mass surveillance and use fear of terrorism to push for it. It's very logical of them.
      • 9y ago
• ktta 9y ago
  Hmm, this definitely brings up an interesting discussion I don't think HN has had before, especially something in a similar vein since Apple+San Bernardino fiasco. Obviously privacy is something that HN holds very close to its heart. But I'm interested in what do people here have to say about the privacy features are used by terrible people to do terrible things. And I want to share something that I think is one of the best arguments for privacy, complete privacy. I do agree with this completely: https://moxie.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to-hide/ https://moxie.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to-hide/
  • fwn 9y ago
    I strongly believe that tools are ethically neutral. A hammer, a knife or a government can be pretty useful, or pretty violent - depending on how you use it. This alone does not imply that a hammer, a knife or a government should not exist or be banned. edit: words
    • tonyedgecombe 9y ago
      It's interesting when you extend that discussion to guns, in the UK guns are quite difficult to get hold of, I wonder what the incident at Westminster would have looked like if they were as available as they are in the US. As always it's a trade off, some people loose the right to arm themselves at home but that means other people may not loose their life to a shooting.
      • darfs 9y ago
        There is no other way to use a gun than shooting with it. (Useful! Of course you could use it like a hammer, but... Srsly.) It's whole purpose is, to hurt someone; i think that's some point to acknowledge first.
        • ajmurmann 9y ago
          You can go hunting with it or shoot for fun or make yourself feel safer. What can I do with encryption other than encrypt messages I want to hide? //Playing devil's advocate
• sn41 9y ago
  In the 1970s, an American president had to resign because of some bugs planted. Now, private conversation is illegal. I guess it leads to "ownlife".
• techrich 9y ago
  as usual she has no idea.
• partycoder 9y ago
  It's just reverse psychology. They have the means to break, degrade or bypass the encryption and they emit statements like these so people remain confident that they're not being spied on. This routinely happens after leaks reveal that certain type of traffic is being targeted. In this particular case, Wikileaks. In the past after all the PRISM collusion was revealed, all the PRISM partners started their PR campaigns showing their "commitment to privacy", and the soap opera with law enforcement agencies claiming they couldn't decrypt devices. In reality they have many tricks they have used for years now, like setting up a fake cell antenna, impersonate a phone carrier to take over a device.
  • LoSboccacc 9y ago
    precisely. I was around when only hatters and nutjobs talked about echelon, getting ridiculed on internet and the outernet, only to be proven correct decades later people have very short memory, it seems.
• satysin 9y ago
  So they get a backdoor into WhatsApp and terrorists just move onto some other non-compromised tool. Rinse and repeat. You can't ban maths ffs. TBH I am surprised attackers do not better destroy their electronic equipment just before they carry out their attack. Pop your phone and SSD/flash drives in the microwave on high for a few minutes is pretty much going to destroy all evidence on them, and if not then chances are you are dead anyway so whatever data they might be able to get off will most likely be useless to them anyway.
  • cm2187 9y ago
    That's why the justice system sort of works. Criminals are even dumber than law enforcement.
    • y4mi 9y ago
      Only the ones that get caught...
  • Tharkun 9y ago
    Not sure about banning maths, but back when I was in school I had to suffer through a couple of maths teachers who were so bad that they might as well have been trying to instill a life long hatred for maths. Wow, that sentence got away from me.
  • dmichulke 9y ago
    It's in the interest of the terrorists to get WhatsApp banned. Terrorists just use something else while the populace feels gradually more oppressed/controlled/... In a way they get something for nothing.
    • sergior 9y ago
      I think this is not about terrorists (that is just a side effect), but for state ability to know what people think and talk about. That is very powerful thing to have.
  • clubm8 9y ago
• sklivvz1971 9y ago
  Coming from the same government that wants all ISPs to keep a log of all the sites you visit. These people are beasts and as dangerous, if not more, as the perils they are supposed to save us from. If people knew the damage these idiots do, they would be in the streets. Oh wait, they already are in the streets...
• vinceyuan 9y ago
  If I have to choose one from end-to-end encryption and security, I will choose security. I don't mind my WhatsApp chats are scanned by police's software, if it can reduce terrorism. Of course, we need to make sure it is used for anti-terrorism only. Update: One solution of 'make sure' is the source code of the monitoring software must be reviewed by independent and trusted software engineers/experts. PS. Downvoting my post doesn't solve any problem. If you have any better idea, welcome to post it out. Thanks
  • ktta 9y ago
    > Of course, we need to make sure it is used for anti-terrorism only. See that's the problem everyone is talking about. The thing, is, turns out you can't. That's was the ENTIRE point of the Snowden revelations. No sane person is okay with terrorism, but at what point are you going to stop relinquishing your rights? First, texts with Whatsapp. Then your phone calls. Then your bags and notes when you go through airport security. Then bugs in your house. All of these will help curb terrorism. But where will you stop? Will you lose all your private life in the name of law?
    • vinceyuan 9y ago
      One solution in my mind is the source code of the monitoring software must be reviewed by independent and trusted software engineers/experts.
      • ktta 9y ago
        That's a perfect solution actually. But sadly, we aren't there just yet. There are nuances with these things that software can't (yet) pickup. So humans have to do it till then. We were maybe born too early. But I think it makes things interesting. That means there are still problems for you and me to solve.
        • natch 9y ago
          Actually it's a horrible non-solution. Assuming these experts are perfect and infallible (a bad assumption), then what does it prove? That only an authorized government agent can have access? Can you not think of any problem with that whatsoever?
• hudathun 9y ago
  Best ban everything that can be misused by terrorists... cars, knives, encrypted messaging.
  • wiubiube 9y ago
    that's the blindspot isn't it ? What's the one common thing about recent terrorist acts ? Vehicles used as weapons. Yet nobody's calling for a ban on the use of vehicles
    • rorykoehler 9y ago
      Even one level up... Since when is a crazy individual with a knife in a car a terrorist? He's just a crazy idiot and we should call him so. If this is modern day terrorism we have nothing to be worried about.
    • kwhitefoot 9y ago
      Only because it is not yet feasible. Once autonomous vehicles become common there will be pressure to make driving a car manually difficult, expensive, and ultimately a crime.
  • vidarh 9y ago
    Politicians.
• blockoperation 9y ago
  I'm surprised it took this long for her to bring up the subject – Theresa May would've had her soundbites prepared in advance and released within hours of the attack if she was still Home Sec. > That is my view - it is completely unacceptable You know what else is completely unacceptable? Technologically illiterate, authoritarian jobsworths capitalising on tragedy to push through their agendas. But that's just my view. Home Office always seems to attract the nastiest and dumbest of politicians, but this is a whole new level of dumb, and sadly will only gain her more support, because the general public either have no idea about the implications of backdoored crypto, or simply don't have any expectation of privacy and are happy to give up what little they have left in order to feel safe.
  • iliketosleep 9y ago
    Sure she'll get support and they may even be stupid enough to attempt to enact this stuff. But rest assured there'll be a massive backlash from big business and various political fallouts from the scandals that will ensue. Then some genius will come up with what's essentially an "encryption is illegal for terrorists" bill and we'll have the best of both worlds: full use of encryption where we need it, whilst the terrorists can't use it because it's illegal!!
    • kakarot 9y ago
      Yeah that'll be totally humane, just like how it's illegal to commit crimes while wearing body armor in most of the US! Or like how street dealers and felons aren't allowed to carry guns or vote! We are being declawed.
  • M_Grey 9y ago
    Listening to some old episodes of 'The News Quiz', and I'm struck by the fact that this is not a whole new level of anything at all. If anything, this is par for the course, and Theresa May being in power at all is a result of that.
• cJ0th 9y ago
  If I may ask a very naive question: Do politicians like her really think encryption is dangerous or is it a devious way to expand mass surveillance? Attacks of the past have shown that terrorists don't have a need to resort to encryption. The people involved in the Berlin attack last year, for instance, were monitored. Authorities knew they would strike but they didn't have sufficient incriminating evidence that would count in court to lock those guys up. Even if encryption on messaging services were forbidden (which would make millions of law abiding people vulnerable in some way), terrorists could use throwaway email accounts from internet cafés and wrap their messages in password protected attachments.
  • GordonS 9y ago
    > really think encryption is dangerous or is it a devious way to expand mass surveillance The latter her and the precious home secretary (now PM) have been banging on about how under threat we are from the terrorist hoards for years now - all so they can erode freedoms and increase mass surveillance under the guise of 'keeping Britain safe'. The idea that banning encryption of private conversations will prevent these few crazy people from causing damage is of course ridiculous.
    • brokenmachine 9y ago
      It's an interesting question though, isn't it. They must know enough to know that this won't actually fix the problem, so I would have to surmise that they are just trying to do something and stay somehow relevant before their term comes to an end. "Never mind the collateral damage, I'll be retired on a government pension by then."
• razzaj 9y ago
  Isnt it weird that drasticly restrictive all encompassing rules are hastily pushed after attacks? Blanket Decryption of messages, and other privacy suppression rules will make intelligence agencies into super powers with too much control at a very reduced cost (less messy assassinations, or physical threats needed)
  • brokenmachine 9y ago
    That's the perfect time to hastily push them through!
• vixen99 9y ago
  Some people will simply refuse to let all and sundry (we have no idea as to who reads and acts on intercepted emails) to read private emails and they will therefore turn to steganography or one time pads with a seemingly ambiguous pre-arranged code. Good luck with reading the latter or even thinking it has a hidden message.
• sametmax 9y ago
  The British gov is looking more and more like the Finger from V for Vendetta. The US president more and more like the one from Idiocracy. That we tend to live up to caricatures should be an alarming sign, but I only see worries on sites like HN. Most people still don't see the catastrophy in it.
  • brokenmachine 9y ago
    > I only see worries on sites like HN. Most people still don't see the catastrophy in it. I'm not in the US. I have actually been very impressed by the outspoken actions of anti-Trump people in the US, with the massive protests and constant (well-deserved) media scrutiny. Also I never knew I could have so much respect for Hawaiian judges. Why they didn't bother to vote is beyond me, though. Trump is a buffoon, but he was able to successfully motivate other buffoons to actually vote. I did hear the description of their vote as being force to choose "between a disaster and a catastrophe" though, so that might go some way to explaining it.
• Entangled 9y ago
  Dear minister, can I whisper in my wife's ear while having sex or do I have to get permission from government?
  • wiubiube 9y ago
    can I talk to myself using my inner monologue please ?
    • sjayasinghe 9y ago
      only if it involves something deemed legal by the Thought Police and the Party.
• mrkgnao 9y ago
  Thought-experimentally: could we potentially be able to scan message databases for the absence of certain phrases, using something like [1], but in a probabilistic manner akin to that of a Bloom filter? This would ensure that law enforcement would be able to flag certain keywords with a nonzero (and nontrivial) false-positive rate. That way, repeated flags end up identifying potentially interesting members of society, without proof and with data inadmissible as reliable evidence in a court of law. Of course, one runs the risk of the existence of false positives being forgotten, TLA/government pressure to reduce the false positive rate, and so on. But I think this is a slightly interesting way to (partially) preserve privacy while satisfying lawmakers who demand that there be some way for them to listen in on (what should ideally be completely private) data. (This is, of course, only possible once one drops the axiom of privacy being an absolute right: I don't personally support doing this at all.) [1]: https://crypto.stanford.edu/portia/papers/HardNDB.pdf https://crypto.stanford.edu/portia/papers/HardNDB.pdf
  • kortex 9y ago
    Theoretically, I'm sure some crafty solution like that exists, but then that is no longer true end-to-end encryption. It's 'leaky' E2E, which in the eyes of most crypto enthusiasts, is practically worse than open channel, because it gives a false sense of security.
• ajuc 9y ago
  By the same logic if we ban freedom of speech terrorism won't be able to speak with each other. Seriously who voted these idiots.
• id122015 9y ago
  Smartness should be banmed. They are too much of a problem! Everyday disruption disruption disruption... Evolution should be banned too and all those books about biology or astronomy. God made it all!
• fauigerzigerk 9y ago
  It would help the UK government's argument if they didn't grossly abuse every single surveillance power they have: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/25/british-councils-used-investigatory-powers-ripa-to-secretly-spy-on-public https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/25/british-counci...
• benevol 9y ago
  On BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39396578 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39396578
• ourcat 9y ago
  So when they discover that he wrote and sent actual letters, will they then demand access to open our mail? Also: Will breaking encryption stop a man grabbing a knife and jumping into his car? No.
  • gsnedders 9y ago
    > So when they discover that he wrote and sent actual letters, will they then demand access to open our mail? Except, like, with a warrant, they can already open our mail. That's a pre-existing power. The difference is under the current legislation a warrant doesn't get them the ability to read WhatsApp conversations; that's the point of contention here, and the difference with the above is perceived to be the problem.
• sergior 9y ago
  How about they look into their business partner Saudi Arabia first? It sounds like as if they let this country poison the minds of mentally ill people in hope the attacks they carry on could be used as an excuse to expand control of the society. Use of this tragedy to do just that is simply disgusting and put in question what government is actually doing.
• sidcool 9y ago
  Even though the article mentions specifically about UK, there are many in the US who hold the same belief. If you want to ban encryption because terrorists might misuse it, what about Guns? Then it is a matter of "freedom".
• benevol 9y ago
  They don't need to touch encryption in any way. It's way simpler to subvert the endpoints, as most people use closed-source operating systems such as iOS and Android which offer closed-source applications. All they need to do is to pressure Apple and Google to keep some backdoors open, which is more than realistic, as Snowden's revelations have shown a couple of years ago.
  • sjayasinghe 9y ago
    Even better, why not introduce backdoors at the hardware level?
• s3arch 9y ago
  >Referring to Whatsapp's system of end-to-end encryption, she said: "It is completely unacceptable. There should be no place for terrorists to hide. Thats it guys. Mommy says no more maths.
  • atmosx 9y ago
    > "It is completely unacceptable. There should be no place for terrorists to hide." Agreed. I'm terrorized when I hear gov representatives talking like that. Who's the terrorist, I wonder.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • tunap 9y ago
      I seem to remember in pre-inet news, rogue actors with mental disorders seldom made national headlines. Now an individual with no affiliation with organized hate-based groups and some twisted logic can dream of international recognition for their actions if they manage to fulfill loose criteria under the "terrorists" FUD umbrella. Dead or alive, they want to be significant in some way different from their previously banal existence, consequences be damned.
      • collyw 9y ago
        I was discussing this with friends. The fact that people are acting in the name of Islam and there is a common ideology behind the attacks is why they are considered "terrorism" rather than lone wold attacks. Admittedly this one seems to be somewhere in between. Mass shootings in the US by contrast, do seem to be done by rouge actors in general, and there doesn't seem to be a common element to such attacks. As with everything such definitions aren't black and white and more of a sliding scale, so can be interpreted differently depending on your viewpoint.
        • alphabettsy 9y ago
          No common element in US attacks? I think in the majority of cases that's just not true. People weren't killed, but the PizzaGate shooter was motivated by what can only be described as a large cult of a particular persuasion, Planned Parenthood shooter certainly had his political motives, Charleston shooter had motives that have existed in the US almost continuously, Oregon standoff were all anti-government types, I could go on and on. I would say the main difference is we are not actively at war with people that share their faith or look like them overseas. As far as I'm aware the Boston bombers and Orlando shooter were only inspired by, but received no support from groups such as ISIS. In that way they were just as self-radicalized as Dylan Roof the Charleston shooter. Obviously it's all more complicated than I could quickly write, but to me there's a big difference between the self-radicalized generally disconnected persons in the US or U.K. versus those on the ground overseas.
• SimonPStevens 9y ago
  I watched Amber Rudd interviewed by Andrew Marr this morning and the scariest thing about it was that Marr completely agreed with her. Rather than providing an opposing viewpoint and counteracting her points, he agreed with the idea that it was unacceptable for people to be allowed to use encryption and that it was terrible these companies were using it as a selling point. All he pushed her on was if she would enforce cooperation from tech companies.
  • spacecadets 9y ago
    Given that the BBC is a state funded organisation, why would you expect anything else?
  • madaxe_again 9y ago
    This isn't all that surprising, given that the government has repeatedly threatened the BBC with the loss/alteration of their charter for being critical of the government and not sufficiently jubilant about Brexit. ITV owning the BBC would arguably be a greater disaster than watered down coverage. For a corollary see the paucity of coverage on the mass demonstration in London yesterday.
    • williamgb 9y ago
      We saw prominent features on the BBC, furious headlines from the Daily Mail and self-congratulation from the Guardian. What would you have considered sufficient coverage for yesterdays demonstration?
    • untog 9y ago
      It isn't all that surprising to me either. But for different reasons. They have no idea what they are talking about. Do we think they know our online banking software uses the same kind of encryption? Probably not. Andrew Marr not knowing this is annoying. But an entire government being ignorant of it is deeply worrying.
      • DanBC 9y ago
        Why do you think the government doesn't know? Why do you think they believe what they say? This is just populist bullshit. It follows on from other populist bullshit.
• slashrsm 9y ago
  This is a complete nonsense. Such move would simply encourage "bad guys" to find other means of secure communication while exposing everyone else.
• Zenst 9y ago
  So a statement that he acted alone by the met police is bing utterly ignored. Ironically no mention of banning 4x4 cars and that frankly puts this whole situation into perspective - government ignorance of encryption, once again.
  • brokenmachine 9y ago
    If we could bundle a 4WD car ban in with the new legislation, I might actually change my mind about the massive loss of basic freedoms. :-)
• secfirstmd 9y ago
  It's going to be a total clusterf*ck when the UK leaves the EU and starts introducing draconian intelligence gathering laws that go further than the EU regulations permit. Think Privacy Shield style problems but much worse...
• bartread 9y ago
  We're a very long way from being a totalitarian state and likely to remain so for quite some time but, make no mistake, this is the thin end of a very long and ultimately very fat wedge. It therefore behooves us well to hold the government to account when they try to get us to swallow more of that wedge. Sure, encryption helps terrorists as well as ordinary citizens but it's my belief that freedom and privacy are more important than that. The work of police and security services has never been easy in a free society, but protecting and upholding that free society is the very essence of the job. Dilution of that freedom is therefore counter to the purpose for which these agencies exist, and so when the government tries to move in that direction we, as citizens, should voice our resistance, and keep voicing it until they understand.
  • alistproducer2 9y ago
    At some point, some politician is going to have to man up and speak the truth. The public will have to either accept that the government can try and protect it from low probability events by invading every aspect of our lives or people will have to accept the idea that there is a sub 1% chance of being killed by a crazy person.
    • k-mcgrady 9y ago
      Corbyn has already spoken up: Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said authorities already had "huge powers". There had to be a balance between the "right to know" and "the right to privacy", he said. [1] Unfortunately when it came to actually doing something he provided practically no opposition to the Investigatory Powers Act. [1]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39396578 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39396578
      • Silhouette 9y ago
        I suspect that will prove to be Corbyn's "tuition fees" moment. If he's still there by the next general election, the Lib Dems will surely attack him for being all talk and no action.
• noarchy 9y ago
  "Home Secretary Amber Rudd told Sky News it was "completely unacceptable" that police and security services had not been able to crack the heavily encrypted service." This is great news, actually. It means that WhatsApp's encryption works, and stonewalls the efforts of state actors (or at least, hers) to break it. That said, we don't know if she's lying about this, or not.
• logingone 9y ago
  Poorly timed opportunism. Police have said the attacker acted alone, so he wasn't using encrypted comms to talk to anyone.
  • cmdrfred 9y ago
    They arrested 8 people so the "acted alone" theory might have changed. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/uk-police-arrests-westminster-attack-170323075501826.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/uk-police-arrests-west...
    • logingone 9y ago
      That link is old. They've mostly if not all been released.
  • clubm8 9y ago
    I really hate this "going dark" narrative. They can track his purchases via his debit card, his movements via CCTV + cell tower records, intercept his emails... but there's one bit of his digital life that's inaccessible and we're "going dark?" We are burning bright with data. More data does not necessarily mean less terrorism. The English might be better served by posting some armed officers in high value areas. The French do this at major train stations and tourist spots like the Eiffel Tower. This doesn't stop terrorism, but vastly reduces the body count. Frankly, I think it's laughable that countries which resisted the Nazis will let 10 people dying make them consider rolling back civil liberties.
    • ryan-c 9y ago
      I posted about this on twitter this morning, and it seems appropriate to repeat it here: For most of history, governments have not had the ability to easily monitor the communications of their citizens. Widely available, user friendly encryption tools are just returning us to normal. Well, except for the massive trail of metadata everyone now leaves.
  • cpncrunch 9y ago
• makecheck 9y ago
  We hear most terrorists ate with forks so all forks are now banned. Also, we were shocked to discover that virtually ALL criminals rely on something called Oxygen to perform their work so this is now a controlled substance that will be heavily regulated. We were then terrified to learn that after banning forks, terrorists were able to successfully eat with spoons or even their hands. /s Seriously, you cannot ban tools. Lawmakers have to approach this with a firm grounding in statistics (how LIKELY is a risk, relative to the magnitude of the measures to prevent it?). They also have to realize that some things are just necessary for society to function. Stop being paranoid.
  • brainfire 9y ago
    It's perfectly legal to use a fork, if you choose to take that risk. We absolutely haven't banned forks, we just urge special precautions due to the clear and obvious terrorism risks. If you want to use a fork or fork-like object (various devices that can be used for stabbing crimes like pencils or pens), just put your name on this watchlist...
  • humanrebar 9y ago
    More to the point, terrorists lock their doors! We need to ban deadbolts!
    • infectoid 9y ago
      Seriously though. Next step would be to force people to install locks that have a master key that only intelligence services have and can only use for good reasons. If you're ok with encryption back doors you should also be ok with govt master keys for all your stuff (house, car, bank account, etc)
• hanoz 9y ago
  I wonder how she felt about private communication during her directorships in off shore tax havens?
• al2o3cr 9y ago
  In a similar vein, to prevent corruption and bribery we should require Ms. Rudd et al to post all email exchanges (official or otherwise) they engage in publicly, along with their bank statements. After all, we can't allow corrupt politicians ANYWHERE TO HIDE. ;)
• rijncur 9y ago
  It is the duty of the Home Secretary (and the UK's various nosey institutions - e.g. intelligence agencies, police, etc) to continuously badger us for this information - unfortunately, it's pretty much part of the job description. It is our duty, as the public, to continuously say "no". Disregarding any negative consequences, their motivations are pretty transparent - there's little doubt that being able to read everyone's private messages will enable the intelligence services to better do their jobs. However, as Edward Snowden and others have already shown to us many times over the last few years, the UK government can't be trusted with this responsibility - and that this is probably the thin end of the wedge. Britain is already the closest thing that Europe has to a surveillance state, and the number of people killed in the UK by terrorism is vanishingly small - we are hundreds of times more likely to die in a car accident. Is it really worth giving up the last vestiges of our privacy for a little bit more security?
  • Silhouette 9y ago
    is the duty of the Home Secretary (and the UK's various nosey institutions - e.g. intelligence agencies, police, etc) to continuously badger us for this information - unfortunately, it's pretty much part of the job description. On the contrary. The Home Secretary is literally the holder of the ministerial authority that is required for police and security services to use a lot of the powers they have, and is supposed to be providing oversight and ensuring that those powers are used responsibly. Unfortunately, that means the Home Secretary spends several hours every day just looking at cases presumably involving some very nasty people. You have to wonder how anyone could keep a balanced perpsective if they're doing that for 20, 30, 40 hours every week for months or years. Everyone who becomes HS in the UK turns into a severe authoritarian within a few months of taking the job, regardless of their prior political views or how reasonable they might be about other matters.
    • rijncur 9y ago
      Perhaps I phrased it poorly - what I meant was that one can view the Home Secretary's requests for less privacy as a fact of life (just as death and taxes), and could consider refusing these requests as part of civic duty. You're correct, the HS usually turns somewhat authoritarian (regardless of whether it is their job to or not) - it is simply the public's duty to resist.
• iamben 9y ago
  If the govt. was to force WhatsApp's hand, I'm sure we'd see democracy in action if they prevented everyone using the app for 24 hours, replacing the facility to message with a note telling users to contact their local MP (with clickable email / phone numbers - and maybe links to the ORG).
  • JoshTriplett 9y ago
    Or even just put a banner at the top of the app.
    • bencollier49 9y ago
      And then suddenly Facebook find themselves legally responsible for the things published on their platform, perhaps. They're not going to stand up to the government, they're in too weak a position.
• doktrin 9y ago
  Looking away from the fact that what they want isn't actually achievable, what does the UK risk by beginning to go down this road? What consequences could this potentially have for their domestic tech sector? My intuition says that they stand to lose more than they could possibly gain, but I'm curious to hear a more knowledgeable perspective.
• doktrin 9y ago
  Looking away from the fact that what they want isn't actually achievable, what does the UK risk by beginning to go down this road? What consequences could this potentially have for their domestic tech sector? My intuition says that they stand to lose more than they could possibly gain, but I'm curious to hear a more knowledgeable perspective.
• threatofrain 9y ago
  I assume that the UK government has been doing these extremely pro-surveillance, anti-encryption, and anti-porn stances because they detect sufficient support from the UK population?
• intrasight 9y ago
  First global warming deniers then mathematics deniers. Where do we go from here?
• Asdfbla 9y ago
  I morbidly curious how many terrorist attacks we are away from actual laws that will attempt to outlaw encryption as used by WhatsApp (even if it wouldn't make sense to do that). Resistance against such measures outside of the tech scene would probably be low. The "I've got nothing to hide" mentality is actually quite widespread among the population, so I don't even think it would be a risky move politically.
• jimnotgym 9y ago
  When you take away our freedom in order to stop terrorism, then the terrorists win. This is one guy in an estate car. Amber Rudd is not a democrat if she really believes this
• nbanks 9y ago
  One reason it's good that governments cannot force WhatsApp to disable end-to-end encryption is that different governments have different definitions of nefarious activity. While the British Government could arguably use a backdoor to stop terrorist attacks, what would stop Pakistan or Saudi Arabia from using the same back door to enforce blasphemy laws? The issue is the same: should a private company help law enforcement by disabling encryption? It's nice to know WhatsApp can help people break the law in places where the law itself is immoral.
• codewithcheese 9y ago
  In these digital always online times; its like claiming no one should be allowed to have a private conversation.
• ohthehugemanate 9y ago
  There are a few reasons to laugh at her position. * The UK government leads the "free world" in ignoring its own warrant process, and pursuing a "collect it all" strategy for commsec. UK citizens have no reason to trust that their government, given such access, would not abuse it. They've abused all their other access thus far. * Privacy and Security help normal citizens and criminals alike. This is as true for a locked front door as it is for an encrypted message. We grant governments the ability to violate privacy under warrant - they may snoop, spy, enter our homes, and read our mail. We do not grant them the ability to violate security, however. They still have to pick the lock, steam the envelope, and crack the safe. These are important distinctions. We do not engineer a backdoor into all encrypted messages, for the same reason we don't mandate a government master key for all doors. * The idea that you can legislate math out of existence is a joke. There is one reason to cry at her position. * They will eventually legislate this way anyway.
• ahussain 9y ago
  Shameful way to capitalize on the recent Westminster attack. See Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" for more.
• ianopolous 9y ago
  The relevant discussion is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yIPuHsB8q8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yIPuHsB8q8
• dfraser992 9y ago
  I assume someone has already brought this up, but it is late and I can't read through 300 comments. From what I recall and have read, this individual has been on the radar of the security services since 2010 and so was a known potential threat. With a history of violence and criminal behavior. Yet effective monitoring of such individuals WAS NOT DONE and apparently isn't. Instead, there is this post-hoc demand that all of the public must give up their right to privacy because the idea of 'pre-crime' prevention is actually viable... complete and utter bollocks. So a blanket violation of law abiding citizens rights is more important than actually keeping tabs on known threats more closely and effectively. Pedophiles are viewed with less disdain than terrorists it seems. And the threat of terrorism is trumpeted to the heavens while pedophilia is apparently more rampant is UK society... It is quite illogical that law abiding people suddenly snap and decide to drive their cars into groups of tourists. How prevalent are the actual potential terrorists - i.e. those with a history of violence, trouble with the law, radicalization, etc? If I knew those stats, then I personally would be better able to judge the claims of the authorities. But I don't have those stats and so the logical assumption is that their claims are exaggerated shite designed to drum up fear and etc etc. Meanwhile idiotic claims that all encryption must be banned or tapped, even for law abiding businesses (does no one remember Cameron's proposals?) are floated... nothing but Band-aids all the way down. I could move back to America, but at this point, that is like jumping out of the frying pan. I really need to learn a second language, preferably Mongolian.
• Khaine 9y ago
  Reading all of the comments I am deeply concerned. Everyone who is opposed to this is doing 'their side' a disservice. Comments are about how stupid, or ill informed the Home Secretary and advisors are, or that they are being blackmailed by the intelligence services. Seriously? These kinds of comments are not going to get the broader public to support your ideals. I think you misunderstand why she (and law enforcement) believe that they should have access to the messages. If the terrorist called someone they can get a warrant for the metadata and see who he called and whether it is relevant to the investigation. If the terrorist sent an SMS they can get a warrant for it. However, if the terrorist sends a WhatsApp message what can they get? Why should a WhatsApp message be treated different from an SMS? That is what we as the tech community need to explain, why backdoors, weak encryption, and escrow are not a solution. I value my privacy. I want my messages to be secure. But if the tech community keep acting like most of the comments on this, we will lose.
• gjjrfcbugxbhf 9y ago
  Theresa May is just using the tragic deaths of some innocents to push her own political agenda. Pathetic political games at their worst.
• I_am_neo 9y ago
  Messaging services without encryption is unacceptable - TRUTH