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

91–100 of 173 posts

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

#91

Post by robertlagrant »

andrejguran wrote: post #80
HeckFeck wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

As an analog: at some point in the past we decided cars didn't have to go at 15mph with a guy with a flag walking in front for safety. We accept a large number of road deaths a year for the convenience of shorter journey times.

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

#92

Post by robertlagrant »

danbruc wrote: post #71
andrejguran wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

> the decision is not a dichotomy between complete surveillance of all communication and doing nothing at all

The problem is that from a security perspective, it sort of is all or nothing.

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

#93

Post by saddlerustle »

d33 wrote: post #60

It's intriguing which battles they choose. It wasn't long since there was a discussion where some people were arguing that they can't make moral judgements because disobeying the law would put them in a very difficult situation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35028107&

The consequence for not obliging with the online safety bill is pulling out from the UK market. The consequence for ignoring legally sound US court orders is Meta executives going to jail.

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

#94

Post by amadeuspagel »

anigbrowl wrote: post #78
jupp0r wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Maybe the treaty's exception for offenses of a political character applies here?

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

#95

Post by penguin_booze »

I was wondering why can't chat apps be like email apps: i.e., let users point to a private key on their own phone, and publish their public key. Then, just like exchanging secure emails, people transparently chat using the same encrypt-decrypt mechanism? Won't this work?

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

#96

Post by twelve40 »

jupp0r wrote: post #10
lewispollard wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone I know here (UK) uses WhatsApp as their default communication tool. I have a few friends using Signal or Telegram, but I'd say WhatsApp is by and large the default, at least for my social circle.

It's relatively easy for people to switch, compared to other social networks.

What?? if all your contacts are on messenger X, it's easy for you to switch to messenger Y? and do what there, message yourself? It's exactly as hard as any other social network!

P.S. I'm always shocked how people suggest "just use Signal" or something, it's really not up to me what to pick what to use at all, but up to the people I'm trying to connect with. It seems like a very difficult concept for the "just use Signal" crowd to grasp.

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

#97

Post by JohnFen »

baby wrote: post #37
brundolf wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 live in the bay area in the US and whatsapp is the default way of communicating here as well

Interesting. I'm not in the bay area, but I am in the US. I use whatsapp, but purely to talk with my friends who are in Europe. None of my bay area friends (or anywhere else in the US) are using it.

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

#98

Post by cassianoleal »

penguin_booze wrote: post #95

I was wondering why can't chat apps be like email apps: i.e., let users point to a private key on their own phone, and publish their public key. Then, just like exchanging secure emails, people transparently chat using the same encrypt-decrypt mechanism? Won't this work?

That's essentially what we had with Jabber/XMPP [0] and OTR [1]. Since the encryption happened client-side, it would also work across networks.

There was a time when Google chat, Facebook Messenger and other high profile chat networks could all interconnect through it.

[0] https://xmpp.org/ [1] https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/OTR

Edit: typo

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

#100

Post by eikenberry »

jacooper wrote: post #9
rany_ wrote: post #2

I can't believe Meta is fighting the good fight for once.

They have been on the side of encryption since the beginning really. I think had WhatsApp not added E2EE in 2014, Encryption wouldn't be that wide spread today.

2014 was also the year Let's Encrypt was founded.
Post reply on HN