Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

401–410 of 591 posts

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

#401
post #332

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 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?

I don't think it is quite as simple as this (I'll preface this with saying I don't think we should have backdoors and that I wish we had STRONG encryption everywhere). I think the problem is that different departments have different goals. It is very clear that the CIA and NSA's jobs would be easier if there was a magical tool that let them backdoor in and no one else. The police and FBI would have an easier time doing their job if encryption wasn't a thing. That's definitely true! The issue is who is watching the watchmen? That's why we need checks and balances (specifically by people that understand the tech). These departments are so focused on their goals that they lose track of the fact that introducing backdoors actually creates more work for them (and thus actually makes their lives harder). But as humans we're always focused more on the task at hand and less on the over arching tasks (we're notoriously bad at dealing with large scale multifaceted problems). It all really comes down to these departments thinking "if we had this tool it would be possible that we could have stopped this" (which possible is the key word, because we've seen that they can't. There's just too much data. You're just adding more hay to the haystack). The failure really is at the checks and balances stage, that those watching the watchmen don't understand the motivations nor the consequences, and thus let them do as they please. Agencies running the checks and balances are supposed to be suspicious and critical, not friendly. But these agencies aren't getting the funding nor can they attract those that are tech literate, so there's a feedback loop that is only getting stronger. What I'm trying to say is that there's this long chain and things are broken at many stages and that if a single stage was fixed there would be significant improvement. Basically solving at any single stage will help stop the feedback loop.

tldr: The intelligence agencies should be smart enough that they would know that backdoors will backfire on them. But they clearly aren't. There's also a huge failure at the checks and balances stage where these agencies are getting approval which creates a feedback loop and without solving this the problem will continue to grow.

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

#402
post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also can't outlaw physics or chemistry. Let me know how non-approved rocketry enterprise goes.

Pretty well? People make small rockets as a hobby all the time. The barrier to entry to cryptography is many times lower too.

>Pretty well? People make small rockets as a hobby all the time.

That's pretty far detached from real rocketry.

A similar metaphor for computing would be the allowed use of a LeapFrog system, rather than a computer.

'My cryptography hobby is going pretty well, I just practiced a Caesar cipher on my LeapFrog.'

(neither a LeapFrog or a model rocket being a practical equivalent to their big relative.)

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

#404

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…

It is reasonable for governments to want to be able to wiretap communications. They can wiretap telephones, including mobile/cell phones, for example as this is built into those systems. There is no problem with that and it is actually welcome. Those apps that provide end-to-end encryption are a problem and they are working on solving it. Claiming that they should not be able to wiretap lawfully (or even otherwise) i…

> Those apps that provide end-to-end encryption are a problem

Are they though? There will always be a means to communicate without surveillance. Backdooring encryption is fundamentally incompatible with privacy, and will be abused - at scale.

For any real cases, the security services have a multitude of other ways of getting the information they need regardless - for example, they could gaining physical access to the target's phone and backdoor/bug it, or swap it out with a backdoored/bugged one.

The real problem with backdooring or outlawing encryption is that it lowers the bar to entry for governments - it makes it too easy, and such sweeping powers will be abused.

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

#405
Mods, please fix the post title. The idea of a backdoor is speculation that is not substantiated by the article.

"will be forced to share users’ encrypted messages with British police"

So far, all the article is saying is that ciphertext will have to be shared.

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

#406
post #398

We were surprised to read this story and are not aware of discussions that would force us to change our product. We believe people have a fundamental right to have private conversations. End-to-end encryption protects that right for over a billion people every day. We will always oppose government attempts to build backdoors because they would weaken the security of everyone who uses WhatsApp including governments th…

So are you saying the backdoors will or won't be introduced to WhatsApp?

Will not. We are completely opposed to this. Backdoors are a horrible idea and any government who suggests them is proposing weakening the security and privacy of everyone.

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

#408
post #53
post #26

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.

> Among all the popular messaging apps only Telegram is in a position to not cooperate with five eyes.

Telegram is subject to US coercion as much as any US company: both major app stores are US-based, and without app store distribution, a product might as well be dead as far as the masses are concerned.

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

#409
post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are you saying the backdoors will or won't be introduced to WhatsApp?

Will not. We are completely opposed to this. Backdoors are a horrible idea and any government who suggests them is proposing weakening the security and privacy of everyone.

Thanks.

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

#410

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…

It is reasonable for governments to want to be able to wiretap communications. They can wiretap telephones, including mobile/cell phones, for example as this is built into those systems. There is no problem with that and it is actually welcome. Those apps that provide end-to-end encryption are a problem and they are working on solving it. Claiming that they should not be able to wiretap lawfully (or even otherwise) i…

> Claiming that they should not be able to wiretap lawfully (or even otherwise) is a rather naive view of the world and lawful wiretapping does not imply dystopia.

I hold the opposite view: that the idea that the evolutionary trajectory of the internet seems wont to continue to allow "wiretapping" (and, for that matter, the existence of a capricious state tout court) is the naive view.

The state is looking increasingly obsolete every day, and moves like this are significant leaps forward in solidifying that conclusion.

Post reply on HN