61–70 of 591 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing. Whoever is interested, has to get hold of the phones to access the messages.
Historical messages, yes. However an app maker can be coerced into adding a hidden user that can participate in chats and receive all future messages decrypted. It doesn't require any special crypto hacks for that to work.
There's a funny,rag level newspaper in the UK, called DailyMail. I suggest reading comments under the article about this, gives a good idea of how naive people can be. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7514787/Facebook-fo...
from whatsapps official homepage, respectively ( https://faq.whatsapp.com/en/android/28030015 , https://faq.whatsapp.com/en/general/26000050 ) >WhatsApp has no ability to see the content of messages or listen to calls on WhatsApp. That’s because the encryption and decryption of messages sent on WhatsApp occurs entirely on your device. Before a message ever leaves your device, it's secured with a cryptographic lock, a…
If the source code isn't available for audit by 3rd parties (or yourself), and you can't build it from source, then it was never really "secure" anyway. What lawmakers do or don't say is just noise. Platforms that rely on trust (in this case, trusting that FB isn't doing bad things) provide very weak guarantees about privacy/security. They could easily include a keylogger in WhatsApp and bypass the e2e encryption, fo…
> Social media platforms based in the U.S. including Facebook and WhatsApp will be forced to share users’ encrypted messages with British police under a new treaty between the two countries, according to a person familiar with the matter. This sounds as if the platforms are already sharing with the US authorities. So this being about them sharing it now with UK authorities.
If I'm reading that right, they are getting the encrypted messages, not the decrypted ones. Either whoever wrote the article doesn't know the different or the uk police have been fucked over by the us...
from whatsapps official homepage, respectively ( https://faq.whatsapp.com/en/android/28030015 , https://faq.whatsapp.com/en/general/26000050 ) >WhatsApp has no ability to see the content of messages or listen to calls on WhatsApp. That’s because the encryption and decryption of messages sent on WhatsApp occurs entirely on your device. Before a message ever leaves your device, it's secured with a cryptographic lock, a…
I’m much more interested in the wording of “in the ordinary course,” which I don’t think is just a quirk of the language and I believe it is an indication that certain differing measures can take place after being compelled to provide information.
Even if FB / WhatsApp doesn't currently have such a capability, there's no legal guarantee they couldn't be compelled to add it, thereby putting them in conflict with language that didn't include that clause.
Afaik, case law is murky over whether creating new code qualifies as speech (illegal to compel) or facilitating legally-approved wiretapping (legal and required).
from whatsapps official homepage, respectively ( https://faq.whatsapp.com/en/android/28030015 , https://faq.whatsapp.com/en/general/26000050 ) >WhatsApp has no ability to see the content of messages or listen to calls on WhatsApp. That’s because the encryption and decryption of messages sent on WhatsApp occurs entirely on your device. Before a message ever leaves your device, it's secured with a cryptographic lock, a…
Did you notice the article doesn't say anything about decrypting the messages? It just says they have to turn over encrypted messages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder what happens with Signal as it's US-based.
Signal may or may not be ok at the moment, but not in a couple of years (it has all the power to silently push an update with a backdoor). Among all the popular messaging apps only Telegram is in a position to not cooperate with five eyes.
This is essentially a worrying prospect if these developments are actually implemented or advance further. The users trust in the social media service is breached if a backdoor where to be placed in their products (It also defeats the purpose of the end-to-end encryption argument). If you reside in the UK and especially in London, things have just become 500% more Orwellian. >Priti Patel, the U.K.’s home secretary, h…
I live in London.It has already gone way beyond of what Orwell could have ever imagined. However,despite of all the surveillance, London is the crime capital of the world.This is probably the best place for criminals,as unless you pull a machine gun on a crowd,not much will be investigated.
I live in the UK and I feel like this is the crux of the issue. I am an active member of a sports car forum in the UK and it's terrifying how little police does in case of theft, even when the house was broken into to get the keys. If you get someone to come out and write down a report that is a miracle in itself - in 90% of cases you are just given a case number and told to speak with your insurer, nothing is ever done. I know a guy whose Range Rover was stolen, he reported it, no one came out - then few days later found it parked in a car park nearby, he rang the police to tell them that he found his stolen car, where it is, and asked if they want to come over and maybe catch whoever comes for it(or you know, maybe take fingerprints and such)? Nah, he was told that if he still has the key he can just take it, they don't have any officers to actually come out anyway. I have friends who were robbed, burgled ,and literally nothing is ever done. There is zero police on the roads around where I live, I'm actually surprised people still follow the rules of the road because realistically, the chances of ever running into a police car are somewhere around zero.
It just feels like police in the UK has been gutted to the point that unless you are literally being shot/stabbed, there is not enough resources to actually help or investigate anything. It's a shell of a functional service.