The Student Room Group

Whatsapp and Snapchat could be banned?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by ExcitedPup
My understanding of some of the discussions between government and industry is that the encryption would not be end-to-end, they would decrypt it at the central servers of the app company, GCHQ would pull out the bits they want, re-encrypt it and send it on its way

Any idea on how insanely unaffordable this would be?

If you want to use a PGP programme to encrypt your emails, have at it. You can still do that.

Fairly sure PGP is in scope for the ban, otherwise the terrorists will just use PGP to encrypt their em... oh wait. They already do.

In any case, encryption for things like whatsapp is overkill. Why do I need my whatsapp encrypted when I'm sending a dick pic to my boyfriend? What purpose is served by that?

Because there's no reason for it NOT to be encrypted. It's trivially easy and it means that Whatsapp can never see the contents of your messages (and thus saves them the hassle of having to comply with vexatious requests from governments), which is a nice feature for the privacy minded genital snapper.

It depends on how you do it.

Oh don't let us stop you from elaborating. Please - continue.



So you are saying the government should not be permitted to read your whatsapp messages, under any circumstances, even if they have a warrant?
If it means they have the capability to do so without a warrant, sure.

Actually, use of whatsapp and other similar apps is extremely common by ISIS, its been used to groom British children to go and fight in Syria.

And is nothing to do with bad education and bad parenting leaving their children susceptible to radicalisation.
Original post by footstool1924
You cannot stop people nor can you force people to stop calling you out


I can absolutely report someone for ad hominem attacks. They are contrary to the rules. Read them and weep.

naive posts.


Says the man who believed Mohammed went to heaven atop a flying horse :lol:
Original post by ExcitedPup
Please don't respond to me. I've reported you for offensive comments. If you continue to harass me I will report you again

I've given you an opportunity to row back on your offensive comments and take part in an adult conversation. You declined and threw more insults. That was your choice. But it is also my choice not to engage with you


What offensive comments? :smile: I know where the line is.

[EDIT] If you quit the debate now, you lose :fyi:. I'm not interested in personal attacks, but I will publicly assassinate an opinion that doesn't hold water. Your argument is currently listing badly to starboard.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by sr90
Won't happen in a million years.


Hopefully it doesn't happen - especially Whatsapp. Whatsapp has saved me lots of money in terms of not having to pay for MMS messages (use whatsapp instead) and international calling. To call one of my friends from university (who had to temporarily visit another country) would have cost £1 per minute! Done it via whatsapp - free apart from the 69p per year subscription charge.

Whatsapp won't be going down without a fight!
Original post by Mad Vlad
What offensive comments? :smile: I know where the line is.

[EDIT] If you quit the debate now, you lose :fyi:. I'm not interested in personal attacks, but I will publicly assassinate an opinion that doesn't hold water. Your argument is currently listing badly to starboard.


I've already asked you to leave me alone. If you so desperately feel you need to "win" an internet debate, you are welcome to your crown. I hope it makes you happy.
Original post by ExcitedPup
I've already asked you to leave me alone. If you so desperately feel you need to "win" an internet debate, you are welcome to your crown. I hope it makes you happy.


Disappointing. Debating on TSR isn't want it used to be...
Original post by ExcitedPup
So I take it you don't want to talk about who is best placed to make these decisions in a society? Did the issue of dictatorships cut too close to the bone?


Not at all. I'm happy to debate such points.

And yes, it is authoritarian to say that someone's views are "dangerous" simply because you disagree with them, and that they should be silenced. People tend to do that when they are wracked with insecurity about their own views


It is abundantly clear that your views on this topic are dangerous.

People who are confident in themsevles and comfortable with their views are happy to debate them

Perhaps you would then care to demonstrate and validate your credentials by informing us of your background/experience, if any?

Original post by ExcitedPup
I can absolutely report someone for ad hominem attacks. They are contrary to the rules. Read them and weep.
You asked him to stop responding to you. That was not "reporting someone". He's a mod so I'm pretty sure he knows where the line is drawn.
Says the man who believed Mohammed went to heaven atop a flying horse :lol:

When have I ever said anything of the sort?


Oh, by the way, you left these out of your response:

"But measures like the Snooper's Charter are draconian, are they not?
What useful information do you believe would be gleaned from the implementation of the snooper's charter?"
Original post by footstool1924
Not at all. I'm happy to debate such points.


Then why don't you say who you believe should make decisions about what is the appropriate level of surveillance, what programmes should be funded and so on? Democracy isn't perfect, but it is definitely the least worst system

It is abundantly clear that your views on this topic are dangerous.


So anyone with different opinions is "dangerous"? Should they be arrested?

Perhaps you would then care to demonstrate and validate your credentials


Credentials in saying that people who are confident in their views tend not to feel the need to go on the ad hom attack from the word go?

[quote[You asked him to stop responding to you. That was not "reporting someone"

Actually, I reported his comments as well.

He's a mod so I'm pretty sure he knows where the line is drawn.


Ahh, is that why you are sucking up? Mods usually have a thing under their username saying so. He does not appear to be one. If he is, then it's embarrassing a mod could be so childish

Oh, by the way, you left these out of your response:

"But measures like the Snooper's Charter are draconian, are they not?
What useful information do you believe would be gleaned from the implementation of the snooper's charter?"


You are confusing two separate issues. The "Snoopers Charter", by which you mean the draft Communications Data Bill, covers a broad range of issues related to surveillance powers, metadata and so on.

This proposal relates to essentially requiring app companies to provide some means of accessing their data.

You ask what information would be gleaned? Any information sent over whatsapp. It is well known that ISIS terrorists have used whatsapp and other instant messaging services to communicate amongst each other, to groom British Muslim young people to go to Syria, amongst other things.

If end-to-end communication remains in place, then terrorists have no disincentive not to use them as they know the government cannot access data going over those networks.

Do you believe that the government should be allowed to intercept phone calls and data, where a warrant has been issued?
Original post by footstool1924
He's a mod so I'm pretty sure he knows where the line is drawn.


Former mod. :tongue:

But yes, I know where the line is - my responses were robust, but stayed on the correct side of the line. :smile:
Original post by ExcitedPup
Or.... we could rely on NSA and GCHQ implementing sensible, strong network protections?


I was a bit confused with what this has to do with backdoors but I think I know now why you posted it. You think that if a criminal wanted to use the government backdoor he'd need to hack into GCHQ's own networks to do it don't you? Sadly that's not how it works. The backdoor "exists" - for lack of a better word - in the encryption itself, not in some safe room at GCHQ. The backdoor is just a name for a weakness or vulnerability in the cipher, that can be used to turn encrypted data into it's plaintext (unencrypted) form. You don't need access to GCHQ's network to use it, you just need a copy of the encrypted data which anyone with a laptop and WireShark can do.

Original post by ExcitedPup

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


The PRISM leak showed they clearly do have the ability to hoover up everyones data and analyze it. If they have a warrant they can already go to the person and demand a password or lock the person up for refusal. That's the proper procedure to go through, because it ensures that they can't abuse the power. It is impossible because they literally cannot access the data without the cooperation of the person in question. Unfortunately we can't really trust them to have the power to decrypt the data on their own without needing the persons cooperation. I wish we had a government that we could trust with that, but it's not a perfect world.
Original post by RiahDawson
Ban encryption from end to end? so do the government get to see our private messages now?


Basically. Yes.

Original post by ExcitedPup

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


Attachment not found


For now.
Original post by KvasirVanir
I was a bit confused with what this has to do with backdoors but I think I know now why you posted it. You think that if a criminal wanted to use the government backdoor he'd need to hack into GCHQ's own networks to do it don't you? Sadly that's not how it works. The backdoor "exists" - for lack of a better word - in the encryption itself, not in some safe room at GCHQ.


You don't have to build a backdoor into the encryption, this is why the focus is on "end-to-end" encryption. You simply have the data encrypted from User A to Server X. Server X decrypts, slurps up relevant data (i.e. users on a wiretap list) and then re-encrypts it and sends it on to User B. Backdoor is being used in the sense PRISM was a backdoor. I'm happy to use the word mailbox if you like. PRISM was not some kind of master key for google encryption, it was a facility through which the security services would select the relevant selectors and Google would send them the data.

[quote[The PRISM leak showed they clearly do have the ability to hoover up everyones data and analyze it..

I think you've misunderstood what PRISM was. PRISM did not hoover up *all* data from Google, Facebook etc. It was a link through which the intelligence community would identify specific selectors (email addresses, etc) and Google would provide them with the data.

From wiki;

According to this report, PRISM is only used to collect internet communications, not telephone conversations. These internet communications are not collected in bulk, but in a targeted way: only communications that are to or from specific selectors, like e-mail addresses, can be gathered.


Do you understand the analytical problem? You can collect as much data if you want, and it's all for nought if you don't have human analysts who can look at it, interpret it, etc. This is a problem the Chinese have been having; they can collect thousands of terabytes of data though cyber operations, but they don't have enough decent, English speaking analysts who can make full use of this tsunami of data they collect

If you think that NSA has thousands of analysts looking through data of people with no link to active investigations or operations just... for what? To find out if they voted Green?... then I think your understanding of what is actually occurring is not corresponding with reality
Original post by silverbolt

For now.


You can say "For now" about anything. What evidence do you have that it will occur in the future? For what reason would it occur?
Original post by ExcitedPup
You can say "For now" about anything. What evidence do you have that it will occur in the future? For what reason would it occur?


And the evidence that you have that it wont is.........?
Original post by silverbolt
And the evidence that you have that it wont is.........?


Do you understand the concept of falsifiability?

On the other hand, I think it is pretty reasonable to say that it is highly unlikely. The government's failure to institute a Stasi-style police state is not a consequence of their not having the technical means, it's a function of our democratic political system.

No government would be able to convince enough people in the intelligence community, the civil service; any government that tried it would lose the next election and any measures would be reversed.

The idea that we will become some kind of Stasi police state is fantasy born of conspiracy theory mindsets
Original post by ExcitedPup
You don't have to build a backdoor into the encryption, this is why the focus is on "end-to-end" encryption. You simply have the data encrypted from User A to Server X. Server X decrypts, slurps up relevant data (i.e. users on a wiretap list) and then re-encrypts it and sends it on to User B. Backdoor is being used in the sense PRISM was a backdoor. I'm happy to use the word mailbox if you like. PRISM was not some kind of master key for google encryption, it was a facility through which the security services would select the relevant selectors and Google would send them the data.

Are you talking about a skeleton key? I'll go at this with an open mind, say I want to email my mum. We both have web based email accounts with American companies (different companies) talk me through how this would work in regard to the data we send to each other.
Original post by ExcitedPup
Do you understand the concept of falsifiability?

On the other hand, I think it is pretty reasonable to say that it is highly unlikely. The government's failure to institute a Stasi-style police state is not a consequence of their not having the technical means, it's a function of our democratic political system.

No government would be able to convince enough people in the intelligence community, the civil service; any government that tried it would lose the next election and any measures would be reversed.

The idea that we will become some kind of Stasi police state is fantasy born of conspiracy theory mindsets


Tbf im fairly sure thats what going to happen in four years anyway with your next election.

I agree its unlikely but then again, theres just something niggling at me, no proof of course. Maybe Ive just read 1984 too many times. But I just think Cameron is a snake. Ok hes a Tory but theres something i dunno vicious about him
Original post by KvasirVanir
Are you talking about a skeleton key? I'll go at this with an open mind, say I want to email my mum. We both have web based email accounts with American companies (different companies) talk me through how this would work in regard to the data we send to each other.


Depending on the implementation, email is sent in plaintext over public networks. Only your connection with your mail server/webmail provider is encrypted, or if you're using PGP etc.
Original post by KvasirVanir
Are you talking about a skeleton key? I'll go at this with an open mind, say I want to email my mum. We both have web based email accounts with American companies (different companies) talk me through how this would work in regard to the data we send to each other.


No, I don't want a skeleton key, that would be insecure.

I'm talking about using separate keys; you use one key for the journey from the user sending an IM. So the data goes from User A to Server X. Server X decrypts the data. If the username is on a list of current warrants, the data is saved. The message is then encrypted with a second key, and sent to User B.
Original post by silverbolt
Tbf im fairly sure thats what going to happen in four years anyway with your next election.

I agree its unlikely but then again, theres just something niggling at me, no proof of course. Maybe Ive just read 1984 too many times. But I just think Cameron is a snake. Ok hes a Tory but theres something i dunno vicious about him


The issue is that, in our political system, no single person can simply go insane and implement a dictatorship. You would need broad agreement from people in key institutions; you would need most of the cabinet, the civil service permanent secretaries in key departments like the Cabinet Office, Treasury, FCO.

You would need the heads and senior officers of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, and senior officers of the Met and other police forces. You simply could not convince that many people. One of them would go to the papers and the conspiracy would collapse.

If you want to see how far a conspiracy gets in a functioning democracy, read about Smedley Butler. A lot of conspracy theorists use him as an example, but actually he demonstrates the proposition that in a democracy, most senior officials are likely to say, "Are you out of your mind?" and immediately go to the press

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you