Whatsapp End-To-End Encrypted Messages May Be Next Privacy Battleground

Status
Not open for further replies.

tom10167

Honorable
Apr 9, 2014
121
1
10,685
0
Faulting Telegram for not defaulting to E2E is something I'd expect to read from a Signal tweet. You open the app and you can either start a chat or start a secret chat, it's not like you need to dig through settings to check some obscure box.
 

jasonkaler

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2011
507
9
19,365
105
Not allowing encryption in whatsapp is a bit like gun control. It will only prevent legitimate use of a security measure, while the bad guys get their guns/comm app from somewhere else.
 

uglyduckling81

Distinguished
Feb 24, 2011
719
0
19,060
30
Not allowing encryption in whatsapp is a bit like gun control. It will only prevent legitimate use of a security measure, while the bad guys get their guns/comm app from somewhere else.
Yeah that's the same argument we had from gun lobbyists in Australia before gun control happened. Then we implemented it and guess what... Not another mass killing in Australia since. Very little gun crime at all actually.
Taking away guns doesn't increase gun crime and violence it reduces it, and reduces it dramatically.
Australia proved it works so there is no point arguing against it.
 

abbadon_34

Distinguished
Aug 7, 2008
1,869
0
19,960
63
Not allowing encryption in whatsapp is a bit like gun control. It will only prevent legitimate use of a security measure, while the bad guys get their guns/comm app from somewhere else.
Yeah that's the same argument we had from gun lobbyists in Australia before gun control happened. Then we implemented it and guess what... Not another mass killing in Australia since. Very little gun crime at all actually.
Taking away guns doesn't increase gun crime and violence it reduces it, and reduces it dramatically.
Australia proved it works so there is no point arguing against it.
Wait a sec, so you are arguing AGAINST ENCRYPTION ?
 

jasonkaler

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2011
507
9
19,365
105


On the original topic of encryption: Would it still work if guns were freely available?
I doubt it. removing encryption from whatsapp will not prevent encrypted communication.
I also seriously doubt government officials are allowed to use non-encrypted channels.

On gun control: Germany implemented gun control in 1938. This was followed by the execution of 11 million people.
it wouldn't have been possible to march people off like sheep if they had the ability to fight back.
As far as I know, Australia does not have any form of world domination agenda. Other countries do!

The underlying question is: What is the intention behind the law?
 

aldaia

Distinguished
Oct 22, 2010
517
6
18,995
1
Despite that I'm a firearm owner and user, I'm all for strong and restrictive firearms control. Encription however is an entirely different issue.

Not allowing encryption in whatsapp is a bit like gun control.
I've never seen someone, who makes a legitimate use of encription, kill somebody by accident or as a result of a temporary rage. However, it is very easy for a legitimate gun owner to kill somebody by accident or as a result of a temporary rage.

Yeah that's the same argument we had from gun lobbyists in Australia before gun control happened.
Gun lobbyists fail to understand, that gun control dosn't forbide people the use and ownership of firearms, it actually ensures a legitimate use.
Spain has a very restrictive firearms law, and still I own a firearm. Different types of licenses are required according to the type of weapon to be used. Only licensed gun owners are allowed to lawfully acquire, possess, or transfer a firearm or ammunition, and may only have ammunition that is suitable for the intended firearm. Applicants for a gun owner’s license are required to legally prove that they have a genuine reason to possess a firearm—for example, hunting, target shooting, collection, self-defense, or security.
In order to obtain a firearms license, the applicant must:
1) Submit an updated criminal background check and certification of good behavior. Background checks include consideration of domestic violence records.
2) Pass a psycological aptitude test conducted in designated medical facilities, whose physicians send a final report to the competent authorities.
3) Undergo theoretical and practical training and testing to ensure an understanding of firearms safety and applicable legal requirements.
I bet most gun lobbyists will fail all three :D

Taking away guns doesn't increase gun crime and violence it reduces it, and reduces it dramatically.
Absolutely.
I lived in the US before moving to Spain. Americans are not inherently more violent nor more mentally inestable than Spanish. However, the rate of deaths by firearms in Spain is 0.62 per 100,000, in the US is aproximately 17 times higher, the only explanation is easy gun access.

 

videobear

Honorable
Feb 27, 2012
103
0
10,710
22
Your arguments completely ignore the many studies that have shown that in states that have adopted concealed carry laws, crimes involving firearms have markedly decreased. When criminals know their potential victims might defend themselves, they are deterred.

This does not, of course, address the issue of mentally disturbed people having easy access to firearms...which is is usual cause of mass shooting incidents. I am all for mental health checks, criminal background checks, and required firearms training...we don't let people use that other lethal weapon, the automobile, without training. Why not firearms? However, having passed the above, I am totally against having to show "need" to own a firearm to some government agency. If you are sane and competent, you have a right to own a firearm. At least in the USA.

But encryption is our issue here. Here's another instance of the government wanting to curtail individual rights and invade their privacy in the name of "security." The government has yet to show where having the ability to snoop on its citizens has prevented a terrorist attack. The individual has an absolute right to privacy. If Apple and Whatsapp and others can provide that, more power to them.
 

aldaia

Distinguished
Oct 22, 2010
517
6
18,995
1
5th message and we are already playing the nazi card. We propably broke the world record of Godwin's law :D


Things are not that simple:

  • ■ In 1933, persecution of the Jews became an active Nazi policy, Jews became Untermensch
    ■ The Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary Brownshirts had ample acces to weapons, that didn't prevent them from being seized and executed diring the Night of the Long Knives in 1934.
    ■ In 1935 the Reich Citizenship Law was passed. Jews where no longer German citizens. This meant that they had no basic civil rights.
    ■ In 1936, Jews were banned from all professional jobs.
All this happened before implementing the 1938 gun control.

After 1945 gun control in West Germany became even stricter than under the Nazi regime, since then no other people where executed (excepting war criminals). Today Germany is one of the safest countries in the world. The execution of 11 million people has a lot to do with a particular regime and nothing with firearms control.

 

turkey3_scratch

Polypheme
Ambassador


There are much better measures against crime than no gun control. Things like people marrying earlier, having less parks, less teenagers working, less protein-rich diets for later puberty, increasing the drivers license age, having less people in mobility, urbanizing more areas.
 
Please stay on topic. This whole thing has NOTHING to do with guns; NOTHING. If you're interested in guns, and effect of gun control, look up Bill Whittle's excellent commentaries on YouTube; Tom's is not the place for it.

As to encryption, in the USA the parasites are stomping all over the Constitution, but it IS the supreme law of the land, and 4A recognizes (does not grant; big difference) the right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects, and forbids searches/seizures without a probable-cause warrant. That's it then, we're done. With a warrant, they may be able to compel a person to unencrypt his own device (or face penalties), but there is no way a rational person condones forcing a company to sell a defective product (e.g. an encrypted device with a back door). I certainly would not buy such a device.
 

aldaia

Distinguished
Oct 22, 2010
517
6
18,995
1
You are right about the offtopic issue. Going back to topic.

I don't care what the USA constitution says and what rights grants to its citizens. There are 7,4 billion people on the world and only 0,3 of those are US citizens. The problem is global. Even if Apple or Whatsapp were finally forced to provide a backdoor, as a citizen of annother country, they will violate my rights, that emanate from a different constitution and are subject to diferent laws. Should then Apple sell two versions of Iphone? with a back door feature in USA and without this feature in the rest of the world? What will the US press say if the China government forced Apple to provide a back door in the name of national security?

Not to mention that once a backdoor exists its just a matter of time before its filtered and can be used with malicious intentions.

Despite all potential abuse by terrorists and criminals, I think the world is a better place with unbreakable encription. Car accidents are cause number one of death in many countries, yet not even the most authoritarian regime, would consider banning cars in the name its citizens safety.
 
I agree. Note that the US Constitution does not grant any rights, it recognizes them. As such, imho if you're in another country, those rights still apply to you, whether or not your particular government was chartered to secure these rights is beyond the scope of the discussion. Imho, the relevant point is, can a company be compelled by force to sell a defective product (encryption that is specifically not secure). My own answer is "Absolutely NOT." If there is a back door, then presumably anyone may be able to discover a key to it, including all kinds of bad guys (which may include those specifically intended to be kept out by the encryption).
About the only thing I might be able to accept would be having a socketed chip in the device that could be removed and replaced with another that would be able to decrypt the device. This would require physical possession of the device, and of sufficiently advanced equipment to read identifying data from the original chip, then program another one for the unencryption. I'd have to think about it for a while, but that might be acceptable.
 

aldaia

Distinguished
Oct 22, 2010
517
6
18,995
1
I don't think it's a good idea:
1) Smartphone theft is on the rise, millions are stolen every year. I wouldn't like my smartphone stolen and my sensitive information decrypted by the bad guys.
2) If only goverment officials have access to such equipment, as a good guy living in a western country, i have nothing to fear. However, I bet that more than half the world population live under the rule of questionable governments. I think is not morally acceptable to grant them access to the same back-door.

As far as I'm concerned the benefits of encription clearly outweight its drawbacks.
 

jehanne

Honorable
Apr 3, 2012
24
0
10,510
0
All of you, without exception, can use Tails & Tor to communicate with "whomever" privately, and there is nothing anyone, anywhere can do to stop, intercept, censure, and/or decrypt such communications, if done properly. The US government will never, ever be able to outlaw encryption any more than they will be able to outlaw English dictionaries.
 

uglyduckling81

Distinguished
Feb 24, 2011
719
0
19,060
30


English Dictionaries don't sound all that hard to outlaw actually. Large awkward book. Pretty sure book outlawing/burning has happened before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY