Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WhatsApp would not remove end-to-end encryption for UK law, says chief

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 173 posts

Re: WhatsApp would not remove end-to-end encryption for UK law, says chief

#71

Post by danbruc »

andrejguran wrote: post #34
danbruc wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which always makes me wonder, what is the extend of the child pornography problem? How big is the nail compared to the proposed hammer? If I had to guess, I would guess this is hammer affecting 80+ % of the population to go after a group constituting a fraction of a percent of the population.

That's a very good question: how to quantify child suffering to one of the worst crimes imaginable? I am not saying I am for or against. I am just trying to point how really difficult is to quantify both sides of the equation.

To add to this, there is probably a huge spectrum, from people secretly taking pictures of naked children at the beach which you might never even become aware of to yearlong abuse and rape. And one should not lump them together to get to get a big number of cases and then pretend they are all of the worst kind.

Also the decision is not a dichotomy between complete surveillance of all communication and doing nothing at all, there are other measures that can be taken additionally or alternatively. So the proper measure is the additional utility of banning end-to-end encryption over all the other things you can reasonably do, not over not doing anything at all.

Re: WhatsApp would not remove end-to-end encryption for UK law, says chief

#72

Post by skizm »

If E2EE in messaging becomes table stakes and Meta can find a way to inject ads subtly enough not to piss off users into quitting, Meta wins hard since they've been building their AI infra to "get around" Apple's tracking restrictions for a while now and there are reports that it is finally showing good results. They'll be able to dial in their ads way better than any competitors until they catch up in the AI department.

https://www.ft.com/content/fc95a0f7-5e4e-4616-9b17-7b72daee6...

Re: WhatsApp would not remove end-to-end encryption for UK law, says chief

#73

Post by eertami »

TillE wrote: post #29
323 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UK politicians themselves use WhatsApp a lot. They will strike the law down a day after WhatsApp stops working in UK. 2 days after there will be massive public outrage since everybody uses WhatsApp in UK. It's an empty threat, just like the internet porn law.

That last bit is exactly right. The UK has proposed all sorts of plainly moronic online restrictions, which never actually get implemented. They simply don't have the clout to push around enormous American companies. It's a tiny country. If the EU or US were proposing such a law, you should take it seriously, but this is just a joke.

Because these proposals are never intended to be implemented. It is an anchor, which is intentionally ridiculous and outrageous, so that when the next slightly less severe proposal is made it doesn't sound as bad as the previous one.

It's very transparent but also standard operating procedure for the current UK government.

Re: WhatsApp would not remove end-to-end encryption for UK law, says chief

#74

Post by alfiopuglisi »

brundolf wrote: post #5
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They say that 98% of users are outside the UK (and those users very likely won't want reduced encryption), so whatsapp would probably just exit the UK.

I know in some non-US countries, WhatsApp is the default way of communicating (like SMS is in the US). Is that true in the UK? That could put significant pressure on the government

I don't know about the UK, but in Italy everyone is on WhatsApp, grandparents included, and without it the country would shut down in a couple of hours. In addition, Italians create WhatsApp group chats for everything. Heck, my sport club has three separate whatsapp groups: a general one, one for the senior's team, and a third one to broadcast official information.

Re: WhatsApp would not remove end-to-end encryption for UK law, says chief

#75

Post by varenc »

tracker1 wrote: post #70
Digit-Al wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signal said they may have to pull out of the UK if the bill is enacted as well. This would be a major setback for communications here. We'd basically have to go back to SMS/MMS and email as far as I can tell. I don't know this is a fight the UK government can win. Does anyone else remember that the American government tried to ban encryption (back in the 90's I think it was)? They eventually had to give up because pe…

Or people not on Apple devices side-load the app anyway (F-Droid). Assuming the corporate action is just to remove the market from the Play store.

If the law is enacted, and that seems unlikely, just removing it from app stores doesn’t seem sufficient to comply. Besides side-loading, users will just keep the old version of the app.

WhatsApp can pretty clearly know if a user of the app is in the UK based on their account’s phone number country code and GeoIP. So if they wanted to comply by pulling out of the UK completely they’d probably have to make some attempt to disable WhatsApp messages for those users they’re reasonably expected to know with some confidence are located in the UK.

But as others have said, this all just seems like posturing that’s unlikely to become law.

Re: WhatsApp would not remove end-to-end encryption for UK law, says chief

#76

Post by danbruc »

HeckFeck wrote: post #62
andrejguran wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that it will be nothing. It will be something larger than 0. First question is how to predict the impact. But more interestingly when we have the impact analysis how to quantify the suffering that will be reduced in comparison with reducing security and how to quantify even that and put these into comparison. (Again I am not on either side just pointing how hard it is to quantify these things)

I don't think you can quantify it in neat charts and numbers. But I suggest that the depraved individuals who consume such materials are already used to being outliers and willing to go to extremes to procure such materials, so in most cases they'll just use whatever dark web crap will serve it. They aren't all as thick as Gary Glitter unfortunately. Meanwhile 99% of innocent people will be hugely inconvenienced by w…

But I suggest that the depraved individuals who consume such materials are already used to being outliers [...]

The perception of those people also has to change. I would guess most of them will not have made a conscious choice to be attracted to children in the same way that most homosexuals will not have decided to be attracted to the same sex. So they have to deal with a desire that they can never fulfill without doing something really bad and many of them would probably benefit from professional help. But thinking about those people as if they are the personified evil and considering them almost inhuman, is probably not what will encourage them to come forward and seek help.

Re: WhatsApp would not remove end-to-end encryption for UK law, says chief

#77

Post by jcarrano »

This could be very good for Meta, just get the government to never exercise the law on you and to do it instead on smaller competitors that may threaten you.

Now everyone wanting to make a communications app (or anything implementing that functionality) is risking an expensive lawsuit on the UK. Meta too, but they have the bucks and influence to weather it.

Re: WhatsApp would not remove end-to-end encryption for UK law, says chief

#78

Post by anigbrowl »

jupp0r wrote: post #13
Digit-Al wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signal said they may have to pull out of the UK if the bill is enacted as well. This would be a major setback for communications here. We'd basically have to go back to SMS/MMS and email as far as I can tell. I don't know this is a fight the UK government can win. Does anyone else remember that the American government tried to ban encryption (back in the 90's I think it was)? They eventually had to give up because pe…

What does it mean for Signal to "pull out" of the UK? How can the UK government enforce this law against an app whose makers have no physical presence inside the country? Force phone makers to ban the app from app stores?

If it's a criminal statute, the UK could fine Signal and the US would help them collect.

https://irp.fas.org/world/uk/us-uk-mla.pdf

Re: WhatsApp would not remove end-to-end encryption for UK law, says chief

#80

Post by andrejguran »

HeckFeck wrote: post #62
andrejguran wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that it will be nothing. It will be something larger than 0. First question is how to predict the impact. But more interestingly when we have the impact analysis how to quantify the suffering that will be reduced in comparison with reducing security and how to quantify even that and put these into comparison. (Again I am not on either side just pointing how hard it is to quantify these things)

I don't think you can quantify it in neat charts and numbers. But I suggest that the depraved individuals who consume such materials are already used to being outliers and willing to go to extremes to procure such materials, so in most cases they'll just use whatever dark web crap will serve it. They aren't all as thick as Gary Glitter unfortunately. Meanwhile 99% of innocent people will be hugely inconvenienced by w…

doesn't have to be neat chart but you kinda quantified one side: 99% of people will be hugely inconvenienced by weakened security. Now the question is how much child suffering is worth to inconvenient 99% of people? Let's say it would be 1 child that could be saved would you say it's worth the inconvenience? What if it's 2,10,100,1000? I am genuinely curious where would you draw the line (And that line is your neat chart with numbers)?
Post reply on HN