Whatsapp and Snapchat could be banned?

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

I'll break it down into 2 parts.

1) I really hope you are joking here. Encryption is important even for anyone with the slightest concern for their privacy. Any idiot with a packet sniffer (easily downloadable off of google) can easily capture and view anything you have sent or anything you are receiving.

2) Ah yes, PRISM, the service that enabled the NSA/GCHQ to collect data from everyone, terrorist, security risk, suspect, probably suspect, possible suspect, and even any innocent holiday-goer included without a court order or warrant. I doubt you understand how PRISM itself works, and the fact that it is irrelevant when it comes to end to end encryption. It is because of the fact that governments cannot see what goes on in end to end encryption that this new ban is even being proposed. In the past, law enforcement agencies could simply fish for data from the ISPs at their leisure. However, because of end to end encryption, the only thing that the ISP sees/collects is a scrambled mess, prohibiting the government from being able to access the encrypted data.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 21

RiahDawson

17

Original post by ExcitedPup

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?

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

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?

So you don't believe governments should be able to wiretap phone calls?

You only see one side of the argument: your side.

Reply 22

thecatwithnohat

20

It won't be banned no, the most they would do is keep up-to-date with the content that is sent over the interwebz

Reply 23

RF_PineMarten

18

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

For that to work, that would mean it would no longer be encrypted. That's what this is about - restrictions on encryption. If you take something that is encrypted and make it so that it can be accessed by security services, it won't just be security services that can access it. It will make a lot of sensitive data (passwords, banking information, etc) much more vulnerable to hackers.

If I send a message or picture via whatsapp, that should get to the recipient and no one else. What the government is proposing will make that less secure. That is why those forms of communication should be exempt.

And I'd love to see someone successfully organise a terrorist attack over whatsapp or snapchat.

Reply 24

Dez

20

Original post by ExcitedPup

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

Instant messenger programs actually pre-date the Internet itself. It's not new technology at all, and was certainly around 20 years ago. Although most services back then did not bother with encryption as much as they do now.

Original post by ExcitedPup

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

These backdoors are totally backwards, incredibly dangerous technical artefacts that would seriously compromise encryption technology. If you actually bothered to read the report Fango_Jett linked, you'd know that most IM encryption isn't actually designed to be reversible, as the encryption key is deleted as soon as the message is delivered. It's simply not feasible to do what the government wants in this case without seriously compromising user security.

Original post by ExcitedPup

Do you accept that phone wiretapping is a legitimate facility for a government seeking to disrupt terrorism plots, foreign intelligence operations and organised crime?

I know what you're trying to imply here, but the legality of phone tapping is totally irrelevant here (although for the record, encrypted telephone lines do exist. Of course since the government already has its claws in GSM/GPRS with their fake mobile towers, there's no call to ban encryption on telephony. Funny that).

Tapping a phone line does not expose the rest of the exchange to potentially be spied upon by outsiders. But if a legally mandated backdoor is added to every instant messaging program, potentially exposes everyone else who uses it. The backdoor's presence would almost certainly lead to a colossal security breach by a malevolent third party. It would simply be a matter of time before someone broke through whatever flimsy security measures the government put in place. That's when the real fun begins.

Reply 25

Mad Vlad

19

Original post by ExcitedPup

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?

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

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?

So you don't believe governments should be able to wiretap phone calls?

I want to focus on this for a moment.

You're engaging in an argument where you clearly do not understand what is being proposed nor anything about the technology in question. You're a dangerous voice in this public debate and I'd urge you to either read up on the technical ask here and understand why what is being proposed is not only impossible, but it's highly dangerous and undesirable, or keep your mouth shut.

It sounds lovely on paper - the security services keeping watchful eye while we sleep in our beds, but as Franklin said:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

The cost is not worth the benefit.

This legislation will not stop anything. A terrorist intent on causing mass murder is not going to care that using encryption is illegal. In fact, it'll just mean that the only people not being subject to dragnet surveillance will be the people the law intended to surveil.

Reply 26

scrotgrot

16

The Green/conspiracy theory thing is hardly unfounded. We know there is routine police infiltration of such groups and taps on their leaders.

Reply 27

bassbabe

14

Lol it doesn't bother me because I don't use either :tongue:

Reply 28

Fango_Jett

17

Original post by ExcitedPup

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?

Except you are flat-out wrong when it comes to this. GCHQ/NSA is not infallible. In order to get law enforcement access to encrypted data, they have to be given an escrow cipher key that can unlock all the transmitted data. IF THIS KEY EVER GETS COMPROMISED IN ANY FORM ALL THE ENCRYPTED DATA THAT IS TRANSMITTED IS OPEN SEASON. The hackers/malware users do not need to transfer massive amounts of data. They just need to get their hands on the escrow key and they can access any encrypted data relevant to that service as they please.

The reality is that Theresa May and her goons have put forward a hideous bill that puts everyone at risk, without even thinking about the technical details or the wider impact of their decisions. I am not against law enforcement being able to access the data of terrorists. I am against a terrible proposal that risks the safety of everyone else in an attempt to make the lives of the GCHQ easier.

Life under Cameron. What a blessing.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 29

Mad Vlad

19

Original post by bassbabe

Lol it doesn't bother me because I don't use either :tongue:

If you use the internet, these proposals affect you.

Reply 30

KvasirVanir

1

Criminals would be in a position to use the GCHQ backdoor, everyone would. We would be relying completely on their sense of honour not to. There is no legitimate reason for the government to be able to read the private data of law abiding people. They already have special methods they can use when dealing with terror suspects including social engineering and malware to get at the unencrypted data. But they aren't able to do that to everyone, just really important targets, so that acts a safeguard against it being abused. But if your information isn't encrypted there's no such safeguard.

I'm glad I can use tools to hide everything I do from the government. It ensures that they will only ever be able to get at it if they have a warrant, which they can then present to me and I'll hand over the electronic "keys to the kingdom". I can't trust them to have a way of accessing it without my cooperation because then that allows for the possibility of abuse and who knows what would happen to my information. The NSA already had one leak, what if they have another leak who decides to dump a massive database of everyones private emails online out of spite? I'm no having mine included in that.

Reply 31

leahdw

9

Who's to say that if it happens, the people who they are looking to target will find a way around it, or carry on doing it regardless. Compromising the privacy of millions of people to get through to a very small minority of probably non-compliant people is not the way to go about it.

Reply 32

Little Popcorns

21

Doubt that will happen as if the Tories aren't getting enough hate (which they're attempting to deflect with lessening the speed of their austerity measures)... They're not going to shoot themselves in the foot like that I don't think

Reply 33

ExcitedPup

1

Original post by Mad Vlad

You're engaging in an argument where you clearly do not understand what is being proposed nor anything about the technology in question. You're a dangerous voice in this public debate and I'd urge you to either read up on the technical ask here and understand why what is being proposed is not only impossible, but it's highly dangerous and undesirable, or keep your mouth shut..

Do you want to reconsider that? That sounds pretty bloody authoritarian, calling me a dangerous voice who needs to be shut down. I suppose anyone who doesn't stand with you is a troublemaker who needs to be sent for "re-education"?

And it appears you are the one who doesn't understand what is being proposed and the technological implications. If you think all end-to-end encryption is going to be banned, or that is even what the legislation envisions, you are way out of your depth

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 34

ExcitedPup

1

Original post by KvasirVanir

Criminals would be in a position to use the GCHQ backdoor, everyone would.

So why didn't it happen to the PRISM backdoor?

The idea that hackers are capable of getting into anything is romantic wishful thinking. GCHQ and NSA's internal networks have never been hacked. That's because they are absolutely scrupulous about infosec

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 35

Butterfly92xo

15

I cannot stand Snapchat! I use WhatsApp though, because it is free (except you need internet data/wifi).

Reply 36

ExcitedPup

1

Original post by KvasirVanir

We would be relying completely on their sense of honour not to.

Or.... we could rely on NSA and GCHQ implementing sensible, strong network protections?

If you believe hackers can hack anything they want, you are confused

[quote[There is no legitimate reason for the government to be able to read the private data of law abiding people. They already have special methods they can use when dealing with terror suspects including social engineering and malware to get at the unencrypted data.

This is the whole point, the government does not (nor does it have the analytical capabilities) to hoover up everyone's data. They are not asking for the backdoor so they can have every bit of data going over the network, they want the backdoor so that when they have a warrant, they can go and get the data. With end-to-end encryption, they will not be able to get that data

Reply 37

ChaoticButterfly

20

Original post by scrotgrot

The Green/conspiracy theory thing is hardly unfounded. We know there is routine police infiltration of such groups and taps on their leaders.

Ye there was that famous case where some female left wing activist found out her long term partner was actually a an intelligence gatherer...

Reply 38

ChaoticButterfly

20

Original post by Little Popcorns

Doubt that will happen as if the Tories aren't getting enough hate (which they're attempting to deflect with lessening the speed of their austerity measures)... They're not going to shoot themselves in the foot like that I don't think

Ye lol, they are are messing with the stuff here that keeps everyone distracted. You would probably get more of a public outcry if they banned facebook than killing disabled poeple :rolleyes: