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

551–560 of 591 posts

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

#551

Post by imhoguy »

shantly wrote: post #260
MarcScott wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've said this before, but you can't outlaw the maths. There's nothing stopping anyone from rolling their own encryption, using well documented algorithms. You'd need to literally outlaw Wikipedia. Hell, even one-time-pads could still be used by truly motivated bad actors that wanted to communicate securely.

They can make it so if they spot you using it (for other than communication with approved banks and retailers and such, maybe), that's instantly something they can charge you with. Then go after a few people who're spotted using it on the Internet by traffic sniffing, meaning the only folks left using it are cranks and actual bad guys.

This is why I am hesitant to use Tor, efforts to monitor it are probably several folds stronger than normal clearnet.

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

#552

Post by feanaro »

spac wrote: post #530
ttctciyf wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And with Matrix apps you can choose to run your own server. Not sure what legal ramifications that has, but practically speaking it allows the possibility of eliminating another potential weakness.

... but probably opening many new ones, unless one has a really strong security team in place.

These vulnerabilities would then at least be bespoke, particular to a specific server, preventing mass surveillance. At least if you're not talking about potential vulnerabilities in synapse (Matrix server software), but then a strong security team wouldn't help that much.

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

#553

Post by feanaro »

nindalf wrote: post #550
hope-striker wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But by your very comment, it only makes sense to hate the politicians! If all they care about is that they keep their jobs, then isn't trying to get the politicians fired for threatening our privacy the best way to get them to care about our privacy?

No and yes. Don’t hate the politician for trying to keep their job. In that respect they’re no different from any other person. Yes, if you can convince politicians that you’re more concerned about the actual damage to your privacy than the hypothetical increase in the probability of a terrorist attack, then go ahead. Do it. Convince them. But my hunch is that most people are far more terrified of dying in a terroris…

From my experience, people in my country rarely think of terrorists. Perhaps these same politicians have manipulated the people into obsessing about this?

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

#554

Post by nabla9 »

jcriddle4 wrote: post #247
nabla9 wrote: post #134

Nowhere in the article is backdoor mentioned. Only sharing data that is encrypted. US an UK governments can't just force FB to add backdoor. It would require new legislation. FB must play ball for that to happen. Since WhatsApp has forward secrecy and end-to-end encryption, giving access to encrypted data is not easy to use. There might be some useful metadata that helps though.

There is absolutely zero ways for WhatsApp and other to comply unless there is a back door. If the Senate votes on this treaty then it has the exact effect of legislation.

Treaty would not include backdoor.

It would be just access to encrypted messages. Unless the law enforcement has access to the phone used to send the message, encrypted messages are useless.

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

#555

Post by mytailorisrich »

ripdog wrote: post #441
mytailorisrich wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Backdooring encryption is fundamentally incompatible with privacy, That's a very bold claim. Lawful wiretapping exists because it is accepted (and reasonable) that privacy should stop in specific circumstances, e.g. a criminal investigation. As I wrote before seeing this in black or white is naive. Wiretapping is useful for society. The key is to have proper oversight. By the way, to lawfully wiretap a phone the au…

You don't understand. Encryption is necessary because on the internet, there is no distance. Any web service today must be built with the knowledge that everyone, everywhere is attacking it all the time. The only defense against that kind of attack is an encryption that nobody can break. When a weakness is introduced into that defense, even if it's a secret key held only by trusted governments and only (they promise)…

I do understand. This is an issue with Whatsapp's architecture, not with my comment or governments' concerns.

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

#556

Post by ripdog »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #555
ripdog wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't understand. Encryption is necessary because on the internet, there is no distance. Any web service today must be built with the knowledge that everyone, everywhere is attacking it all the time. The only defense against that kind of attack is an encryption that nobody can break. When a weakness is introduced into that defense, even if it's a secret key held only by trusted governments and only (they promise)…

I do understand. This is an issue with Whatsapp's architecture, not with my comment or governments' concerns.

No, you don't. This is a fundamental rule of how encryption works. You can't design around it.

If there is a key which decrypts everything, then there is a risk it can be stolen or guessed and used to decrypt anyone's messages. This risk does not exist in current, properly designed systems.

Any government which wishes to add a backdoor to an E2E encrypted messaging system must understand that they will be HEAVILY undermining the security and privacy rights for all users of the service which has the backdoor.

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

#557

Post by mytailorisrich »

ripdog wrote: post #556
mytailorisrich wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do understand. This is an issue with Whatsapp's architecture, not with my comment or governments' concerns.

No, you don't. This is a fundamental rule of how encryption works. You can't design around it. If there is a key which decrypts everything, then there is a risk it can be stolen or guessed and used to decrypt anyone's messages. This risk does not exist in current, properly designed systems. Any government which wishes to add a backdoor to an E2E encrypted messaging system must understand that they will be HEAVILY und…

I think you are the one not understanding at this point. This has nothing to do with "how encryption works".

Whatsapp decided to go for E2E encryption for commercial and marketing purposes following all those privacy scandals.

They did not have to. They could have gone with P2P encryption, i.e. that their databases could have stored messages in cleartext. That way authorities would not have needed to ask for any backdoor. As already mentioned, this is how cellular operators work (that's obviously something governments wanted).

I think we might see legislation brought in in the future in order to force this.

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

#558

Post by zaro »

I see some comments are raising this topic with nothing to hide.

But people on both sides, do you think it's OK for you to have nothing to hide, but the government that rules you has something to hide?

For me it's not so much whether I hide something or or, but rather that if I'll be living under nothing to hide paradigm then the people controlling that should also live under the same. And actually not only the people but rather the institutions. So if an institution is having access to all citizens data that is being collected then the citizens should also have transparency on each decision made and each cent spent by this institution at any time.

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

#559

Post by commandersaki »

incompatible wrote: post #525
wcathcart wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do not. You don't have to take our word on this -- I wouldn't want you to. As others on this thread have pointed out it's possible enough to tear through our binaries that if we did have a backdoor it would be discovered.

Unfortunately, the WhatsApp terms of service say you must not "reverse engineer, alter, modify, create derivative works from, decompile, or extract code from our Services"

In (at least) the US this wouldn't hold up in court if they went after you: https://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html.

Of course if WhatsApp detected an abnormal or tampered version of the app, they can suspend or disable your account. I'm sure security labs that do reverse engineering of this sort probably do it on test handsets with burner numbers and identities so it wouldn't affect any personal accounts they use.

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

#560

Post by Lutzb »

Yajirobe wrote: post #473
Lutzb wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My questions to people who say they have nothing to hide: - what are the things you and your significant other are doing in the private of your house? - which co-worker do fantasize about, be specific in what you like to do. - As teenager what legal/illegal drugs did you consume. How often did you pass out, who where the people you consumed these drugs with? - What are your political leanings? - How much do earn, whe…

> Be aware that I will share this information with anyone in your social group/work/volunteering work whenever I feel like it. I may also share this data with extremists groups on the other side of the spectrum, if helpful. Lastly I can use this data to fabricate "helpful" information about you if necessary Citation needed

East Germany pre unification.

Edit: upvoted you. Asking the question, if and when this happened is important for further generations.

Post reply on HN