The Student Room Group

Whatsapp and Snapchat could be banned?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/10/whatsapp-and-facebook-messenger-ban-could-be-just-weeks-away-under-new-snoopers-charter_n_7767846.html?1436519585

"WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger and Snapchat could all potentially be banned under the controversial so-called new 'Snoopers Charter' that's being drafted at the moment.

The Investigatory Powers Bill, mentioned in the 2015 Queen's Speech, would allow the government to ban instant messaging apps that refuse to remove end-to-end encryption.

Home Secretary Theresa May reportedly plans to push the bill forward as quickly as possible, putting it in front of the Government by the Autumn.

There have been reports that the Government might even have the bill enforced by the end of this year, however the Home Secretary gives the bill an official deadline of December 2016, allowing time for debate and re-drafting."



if this is true then this Tories are really battering young people this time around. This policy seems like it's a failure on arrival.




Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Tbh I doubt they could just scrap the most popular social networking apps from the UK without a very very tense fight, they will just have to adhere to 'new' rules and guidlines
Won't happen in a million years.
It's not going to be banned. The legislation provides the government with leverage to allow it to compel these companies to make their apps open to government surveillance when appropriate.

Presumably no-one would deny that the police or security services should be able to obtain a telephone intercept warrant, if someone is a criminal or terrorist, for the purposes of gathering intelligence. So why should other forms of communication be exempt? Making certain apps a surveillance free zone is just an invitation for terrorists to turn to using those apps
Original post by datpiff
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/10/whatsapp-and-facebook-messenger-ban-could-be-just-weeks-away-under-new-snoopers-charter_n_7767846.html?1436519585

"WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger and Snapchat could all potentially be banned under the controversial so-called new 'Snoopers Charter' that's being drafted at the moment.

The Investigatory Powers Bill, mentioned in the 2015 Queen's Speech, would allow the government to ban instant messaging apps that refuse to remove end-to-end encryption.

Home Secretary Theresa May reportedly plans to push the bill forward as quickly as possible, putting it in front of the Government by the Autumn.

There have been reports that the Government might even have the bill enforced by the end of this year, however the Home Secretary gives the bill an official deadline of December 2016, allowing time for debate and re-drafting."



if this is true then this Tories are really battering young people this time around. This policy seems like it's a failure on arrival.




Posted from TSR Mobile


Ban encryption from end to end? so do the government get to see our private messages now?
Original post by RiahDawson
Ban encryption from end to end? so do the government get to see our private messages now?


Not ban end to end encryption, its authority to ban apps that refuse to give the government a mechanism by which it can put certain users under surveillance if necessary.

If the government found out that an ISIS commander in Iraq was communicating with someone in Britain, do you think it's unreasonable that the government should be able to intercept those communications to find out what is happening?

You can be assured that the government has absolutely no interest in you if you're not involved in terrorism or organised crime.
Reply 6
Original post by RiahDawson
Ban encryption from end to end? so do the government get to see our private messages now?


From what I understand, the government could with a valid warrant demand that the offending company provide access to the unencrypted data of potential targets only after receiving authorisation from a legal body. Therefore your private messages are safe so long as you do not pose a threat to the safety and security of the nation - I have no problem with this.


Posted from TSR Mobile
I fully recommend that everyone start using a VPN for all their internet access.
Original post by ExcitedPup
It's not going to be banned. The legislation provides the government with leverage to allow it to compel these companies to make their apps open to government surveillance when appropriate.

Presumably no-one would deny that the police or security services should be able to obtain a telephone intercept warrant, if someone is a criminal or terrorist, for the purposes of gathering intelligence. So why should other forms of communication be exempt? Making certain apps a surveillance free zone is just an invitation for terrorists to turn to using those apps


Except of course that the measures that have been proposed by the US and UK government don't even bother to take into consideration the wider impact and potential risks of giving governments the power to go over end to end encryption, and has been slammed by every single reputable technologies and securities expert in the world.

There's a very nice article from researchers at MIT explaining why it's such a crappy idea.

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/97690/MIT-CSAIL-TR-2015-026.pdf?sequence=8
Reply 9
Original post by Fango_Jett
I fully recommend that everyone start using a VPN for all their internet access.


Check your VPNs terms and conditions - most will not respect your privacy, keep logs, and hand them over to a legitimate government of asked so a VPN is not the answer.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Fango_Jett
Except of course that the measures that have been proposed by the US and UK government don't even bother to take into consideration the wider impact and potential risks of giving governments the power to go over end to end encryption, and has been slammed by every single reputable technologies and securities expert in the world.

But they are not banning end to end encryption, they are taking the authority to ban "applications" that refuse to put in a reasonable backdoor.

There's a very nice article from researchers at MIT explaining why it's such a crappy idea.



That article does not address this particular policy, it objects to government having access in some way or another to any relevant communication. It is not unreasonable that the government, with a warrant, should be able to intercept relevant communications.

All the arguments against it tend to be based on conspiratorial fantasies that the government cares if you vote for the Greens or wants to put people under surveillance for believing in 9/11 conspiracy theories
Original post by ackbar
Check your VPNs terms and conditions - most will not respect your privacy, keep logs, and hand them over to a legitimate government of asked so a VPN is not the answer.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Is it not reasonable that if the government has good reason to suspect you are engaging in terrorism, that they can intercept your communications? What is wrong with that?
Original post by ackbar
Check your VPNs terms and conditions - most will not respect your privacy, keep logs, and hand them over to a legitimate government of asked so a VPN is not the answer.


Posted from TSR Mobile


There are plenty of VPNs out there that do not keep logs or data of any kind and accept Bitcoin as payment. Even if your VPN does keep logs, its a non issue for the vast majority of users. Most VPNs including ones that log are highly reluctant to void their users privacy and will only hand over data with a warrant.
Original post by datpiff
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/10/whatsapp-and-facebook-messenger-ban-could-be-just-weeks-away-under-new-snoopers-charter_n_7767846.html?1436519585

"WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger and Snapchat could all potentially be banned under the controversial so-called new 'Snoopers Charter' that's being drafted at the moment.

The Investigatory Powers Bill, mentioned in the 2015 Queen's Speech, would allow the government to ban instant messaging apps that refuse to remove end-to-end encryption.

Home Secretary Theresa May reportedly plans to push the bill forward as quickly as possible, putting it in front of the Government by the Autumn.

There have been reports that the Government might even have the bill enforced by the end of this year, however the Home Secretary gives the bill an official deadline of December 2016, allowing time for debate and re-drafting."



if this is true then this Tories are really battering young people this time around. This policy seems like it's a failure on arrival.




Posted from TSR Mobile


http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3433431&page=2&p=57521295#post57521295
Original post by ExcitedPup
Is it not reasonable that if the government has good reason to suspect you are engaging in terrorism, that they can intercept your communications? What is wrong with that?


Oh and who would control who is a 'potential threat ' and who's communications can be intercepted. Freedom of speech shouldn't be compromised just so the government has rights to snoop around. Do you realize how dangerous having a backdoor for governments would be? It would be a main target to hack and get hold of everyone's data. There should be no such access to anyone.
Reply 15
Original post by ExcitedPup
Not ban end to end encryption, its authority to ban apps that refuse to give the government a mechanism by which it can put certain users under surveillance if necessary.

If the government found out that an ISIS commander in Iraq was communicating with someone in Britain, do you think it's unreasonable that the government should be able to intercept those communications to find out what is happening?

You can be assured that the government has absolutely no interest in you if you're not involved in terrorism or organised crime.


The government has managed just fine without these draconic backdoors for the past two decades. Why should it need them now?
Original post by RiahDawson
Oh and who would control who is a 'potential threat ' and who's communications can be intercepted. Freedom of speech shouldn't be compromised just so the government has rights to snoop around.


So you're saying the government shouldn't be able to intercept communications when they have reason to believe someone is, for example, planning a terrorist attack? Are you insane?

Do you realize how dangerous having a backdoor for governments would be?


If you are a normal person and understand that the British government is seeking to engage in surveillance against terrorists, organised criminals and foreign intelligence agents, then you would accept it's a perfectly understandable next step from phone wiretapping given the changing nature of technology.

If you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist who thinks the government cares if people vote Green or will put them under surveillance for believing in a 9/11 conspiracy, then you may have an issue with it. But thankfully the latter category don't really have any influence on policymaking

It would be a main target to hack and get hold of everyone's data.


Nonsense. For a start, no hacker would be in a position to hack the GCHQ backdoor, secondly even if they could get momentary access, do you know how long it would take to transfer "everyone's" data? How long would they have before GCHQ's firewalls detected a major unauthorised data transfer?

There should be no such access to anyone.


So you don't believe governments should be able to wiretap phone calls?
Original post by Dez
The government has managed just fine without these draconic backdoors for the past two decades. Why should it need them now?


Did Snapchatt and Whatsapp exist two decades ago? Did they even exist ten years ago? Of course not

These backdoors and the new government data proposals are purely a function of the changing nature of technology and the need to stay up-to-date in terms of what they can do

Do you accept that phone wiretapping is a legitimate facility for a government seeking to disrupt terrorism plots, foreign intelligence operations and organised crime?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ExcitedPup
But they are not banning end to end encryption, they are taking the authority to ban "applications" that refuse to put in a reasonable backdoor.




That article does not address this particular policy, it objects to government having access in some way or another to any relevant communication. It is not unreasonable that the government, with a warrant, should be able to intercept relevant communications.

All the arguments against it tend to be based on conspiratorial fantasies that the government cares if you vote for the Greens or wants to put people under surveillance for believing in 9/11 conspiracy theories


You clearly didn't understand (or read?) the article. It wasn't objecting to law enforcement having access to data. It was stating how there is simply no viable way of backdooring encryption as of now without putting every other user at risk. 1) Giving law enforcement access via an escrow key to transmitted encrypted data hinders forward security and puts every other user at risk in the case if the escrow key is ever compromised. 2) Plaintext access on a device has A) it's own plethora of risks and B) Easily circumventable. Even bruteforcing encryptions keys has been made nightmarishly difficult.

The reality is that the government hasn't come up with a method for backdooring without putting everyone else at risk. It's such a hideously crafted bill that selfishly puts millions at risk without coming up with a real solution themselves.
Original post by Fango_Jett
You clearly didn't understand (or read?) the article. It wasn't objecting to law enforcement having access to data. It was stating how there is simply no viable way of backdooring encryption as of now without putting every other user at risl.

The fact is that ordinary Whatsapp users don't need encryption. If you are a business or something like that, with specific security needs, then they have secure, professional communications, special software or even dedicated secure smartphones and servers.

There is no need for the encryption to be end-to-end for ordinary consumer users. The Prism programme provides a good model for how such a backdoor could work

Quick Reply