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

Facebook, WhatsApp Will Have to Share Messages With U.K.?

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 591 posts

Re: Facebook, WhatsApp Will Have to Share Messages With U.K.?

#371

Post by throwaway87378 »

GordonS wrote: post #220

The idea that moves like this will "keep us safe" is utterly preposterous; there are a multitude of other ways in which terrorists (or the boogeyman de jour ) could communicate - are the UK and US governments going to insist on backdooring IRC, Slack and face-to-face conversations? Are they going to outlaw encryption libraries? I truely fear for the future that western governments, in particular the 5 eyes members, a…

> The idea that moves like this will "keep us safe" is utterly preposterous

The "terrorism" rationalization provided for this surveillance has nothing to do with reality. The United States government is not in any way involved in fighting the source of jihadist terrorism, and the state responsible for 9/11, Saudi Arabia. They are allies, and Trump's cabinet is now attempting to arm Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons. The actual intent of this law is to surveil whistle-blowers and journalists. WhatsApp messages have already been used in the case against IRS whistle-blower John Fry, who exposed the Donald Trump-Michael Cohen hush payments.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/report-trump-rushing-...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCo-0EAu5Oc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW-SjxsGHOI

https://theintercept.com/2019/08/04/whistleblowers-surveilla...

Re: Facebook, WhatsApp Will Have to Share Messages With U.K.?

#372

Post by fauigerzigerk »

arctangent wrote: post #352
blobs wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The keeping safe argument from government is indeed preposterous. As if that was their mission to keep us safe. Why are they allowing our nature to be destroyed in favor of money/economy? This years heatwaves killed many thousands of people in Europe only, some estimates are in the tens of thousands. This is real deaths in 1 year, not because of terrorist attacks, no fucking backdoor will stop this. And what are they…

Cold weather causes more deaths than warm weather. See for example: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/30/excess-winte...

Sounds like NHS underfunding is what killed most of them.

Re: Facebook, WhatsApp Will Have to Share Messages With U.K.?

#373

Post by chillacy »

johnisgood wrote: post #257

Yes, this is exactly what I meant when I said that you either do what the Government says, or you go down. This is why I do not believe statements of privacy from Apple (such as we keep your data safe, 100% secure, etc.), for example. If they really have no backdoors or any other ways for the Government to access your data, then the Government would go after Apple. If the Government were to request your data, they wo…

Apple fought a court battle over this and won. If the government just beat the CEO over with a rubber hose until they built in backdoors, why would they bother publishing a public treaty or trying to amend the laws?

Re: Facebook, WhatsApp Will Have to Share Messages With U.K.?

#375

Post by m-p-3 »

blobs wrote: post #332
GordonS wrote: post #220

The idea that moves like this will "keep us safe" is utterly preposterous; there are a multitude of other ways in which terrorists (or the boogeyman de jour ) could communicate - are the UK and US governments going to insist on backdooring IRC, Slack and face-to-face conversations? Are they going to outlaw encryption libraries? I truely fear for the future that western governments, in particular the 5 eyes members, a…

The keeping safe argument from government is indeed preposterous. As if that was their mission to keep us safe. Why are they allowing our nature to be destroyed in favor of money/economy? This years heatwaves killed many thousands of people in Europe only, some estimates are in the tens of thousands. This is real deaths in 1 year, not because of terrorist attacks, no fucking backdoor will stop this. And what are they…

The goal of national security isn't to protect its citizen, but to protect the established order and whoever leads it.

Backdooring a communication is only done to safeguard a government's power under the pretense of security.

Re: Facebook, WhatsApp Will Have to Share Messages With U.K.?

#376

Post by jarjoura »

Why is this article Facebook focused? Is this click-bait? Telegraph and iMessage also support unbreakable end to end encryption.

Also, if we're talking backdoors, why not just force Apple to unlock devices so that police can just read the messages in WhatsApp directly? That's something I could get behind as it means the intelligence community has to at least have the physical device on hand.

Do people have actual links to this treaty they're about to sign and what the exact wording is? I remember there being this 5-nation meeting in the summer with Canada and Australia that was specifically looking to lobby Facebook to open WhatsApp. Haven't seen anything new since.

Re: Facebook, WhatsApp Will Have to Share Messages With U.K.?

#377

Post by recycler01 »

fabiospampinato wrote: post #274
jhh wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still remember how one German Islamist terror group just used their web-email provider's draft feature. They never 'sent' anything. There are often quite simple ways to circumvent this kind of thing.

Yeah only a stupid person can think that backdooring whatsapp will actually prevent the next 9/11. And that's in my opinion the core issue with most politicians, stupidity/tech illiteracy. I'd love to hear about either a possible alternative government structure in which there are no politicians or a way to attract the smartest people in governments.

> will prevent the next 9/11

When you consider the societal fallout and everything that has transpired since, the most insane part to me is that by its very occurrence, 9/11 itself already prevented the next 9/11. The "next 9/11" was to crash the fourth hijacked plane into a high value traget; the plane on which the passengers fought back which was crashed in Pennsylvania WAS the next 9/11. This was a tactic that was apprehended and adapted to before the day was out. It worked three times on one day, once. An update to the mental calculus of common folks was all it really took. If we had successfully prevented it re-shaping our society, it would have never, ever, ever worked again. This newfound understanding of the rules coupled with a straight-forward countermeasure like reinforced cockpit doors would have closed off that vector of attack entirely.

19 malevolent people acting in 2001 have colored nearly two decades of policy for America. I remember two particular circulating ideas from the time: "they're attacking our way of life" and "they hate us because we are free." The latter was much more divisive and so people spent much more time arguing with each other about it. Meanwhile, whether intentionally on the part of the attackers or not, the first was very effectively accomplished.

Maybe if there had been no 9/11, the agencies charged with protecting Americans would have still been seduced by the ease with which modern technology enables broad surveillance. Maybe hoovering up all the data is too good an opportunity to pass up. Regardless, I yearn for, and still miss the end of history. Our hubris has been rewarded with interesting times.

Re: Facebook, WhatsApp Will Have to Share Messages With U.K.?

#378

Post by ijidak »

fabiospampinato wrote: post #274
jhh wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still remember how one German Islamist terror group just used their web-email provider's draft feature. They never 'sent' anything. There are often quite simple ways to circumvent this kind of thing.

Yeah only a stupid person can think that backdooring whatsapp will actually prevent the next 9/11. And that's in my opinion the core issue with most politicians, stupidity/tech illiteracy. I'd love to hear about either a possible alternative government structure in which there are no politicians or a way to attract the smartest people in governments.

> I'd love to hear about either a possible alternative government structure in which there are no politicians

So the core problem is that humans don't make great rulers. Not are we good at selecting rulers.

Individuals are the flaw in the system. And a government without stupidity, means a government without humans.

Thus... http://bit.ly/2nsTLdE

Re: Facebook, WhatsApp Will Have to Share Messages With U.K.?

#379

Post by jebeng »

grawprog wrote: post #344
blobs wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The keeping safe argument from government is indeed preposterous. As if that was their mission to keep us safe. Why are they allowing our nature to be destroyed in favor of money/economy? This years heatwaves killed many thousands of people in Europe only, some estimates are in the tens of thousands. This is real deaths in 1 year, not because of terrorist attacks, no fucking backdoor will stop this. And what are they…

>They are the only ones who can change things by law, not me. I had this thought yesterday as I read about several prominent politicians in Canada, including the prime minister, actively participating in the climate 'protests' that occurred yesterday. Who were they out there protesting? Themselves? They're the ones with the power to change things. Why were they outside with signs instead of in their offices doing som…

That can presumably be explained by the fact that there is a federal election coming up in less than a month.

Re: Facebook, WhatsApp Will Have to Share Messages With U.K.?

#380

Post by jholman »

verizonuser wrote: post #275
kick wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I don't agree that your argument was high-quality: Paul Graham: I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness. It only becomes abuse when people resort to karma bombing: downvoting a lot of comments by one user without reading them in order to subtract ma…

Thanks for clarifying and stating your opinion about the quality of my comment. However, seems a bit too broad-stroke to use downvoting for both the (lack of) quality of the comment and to express disagreement.

I thought it was a comment that deserved an upvote.

But I always always downvote complaints about downvotes, such as your edit.

Post reply on HN