UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable

UK Home Secretary says encryption on messaging services is unacceptable(reuters.com)

493 points by zepolud 9 years ago | 383 comments

bartread 9 years ago |

We're a very long way from being a totalitarian state and likely to remain so for quite some time but, make no mistake, this is the thin end of a very long and ultimately very fat wedge. It therefore behooves us well to hold the government to account when they try to get us to swallow more of that wedge.

Sure, encryption helps terrorists as well as ordinary citizens but it's my belief that freedom and privacy are more important than that. The work of police and security services has never been easy in a free society, but protecting and upholding that free society is the very essence of the job. Dilution of that freedom is therefore counter to the purpose for which these agencies exist, and so when the government tries to move in that direction we, as citizens, should voice our resistance, and keep voicing it until they understand.

lb1lf 9 years ago | |

Every time a person in a position of power calls for the intentional weakening of cryptographic systems - be it via backdoors, limits on key length or whatever, I long for a gutsy interviewer to ask them - preferably live - whether they advocate that position out of ignorance or malice.

There really aren't many other alternatives.

laumars 9 years ago | | |

I would rather interviewers asked if that means that Jo Public should also be allowed the tools to read the politicians private messages as well.

I'm all for a Utopian society where nobody needs to encrypt private messages, but so long as there are people in power who feel they need special treatment, then I will continue to demand the same level privacy as them.

FatalBaboon 9 years ago | | |

I believe they do it because they've been elected to do so.

It takes too much to reply: "Tell you what, I'm going to educate you better instead". Because you can educate all you want, you will not have results that helps your re-election 4-5 years down the road.

daemin 9 years ago | | |

More likely they would say they want to do it because it would be "helping the police and security services to do their job" and be "protecting the people".

Silhouette 9 years ago | |

We're a very long way from being a totalitarian state and likely to remain so for quite some time

The scary thing is that the difference between the UK and the kind of place we might describe using words like "totalitarian state" is now more about how our laws are used in practice than what the laws actually say. The government and its agents already have very broad powers, our courts have already taken surprisingly illiberal positions when some of those powers have been challenged, and we lack the constitutional checks and balances often found elsewhere, more so if the government uses Brexit as a mechanism to remove those deriving from Europe without replacing them. We're basically just trusting that the government and its agents will be decent people and use the powers they have responsibly at this point, but as we've seen with the likes of Trump, that's a dangerous strategy when you don't know who the government will be in the future.

brokenmachine 9 years ago | | |

I agree with this. The last thing we need is more laws and new powers for the surveillance state.

For example, Australia's Lindt Cafe siege - the guy was already under "24 hour surveillance" by ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence) - which did nothing to prevent the attack. Despite this, AFAIK there was not much blame placed on ASIO. I'm sure there are many other examples. I'm not saying it's an easy problem to solve, just that more surveillance is probably not the answer.

Sure, the attacker is the real culprit, but adding more laws and surveillance will not prevent crazies from doing crazy stuff.

alistproducer2 9 years ago | |

At some point, some politician is going to have to man up and speak the truth. The public will have to either accept that the government can try and protect it from low probability events by invading every aspect of our lives or people will have to accept the idea that there is a sub 1% chance of being killed by a crazy person.

k-mcgrady 9 years ago | | |

Corbyn has already spoken up:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said authorities already had "huge powers". There had to be a balance between the "right to know" and "the right to privacy", he said. [1]

Unfortunately when it came to actually doing something he provided practically no opposition to the Investigatory Powers Act.

[1]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39396578

emmab 9 years ago | | |

> sub 1% chance of being killed by a crazy person.

Please don't attribute homicidal political views to insanity. These people don't have schizophrenia, and people with schizophrenia aren't terrorists.

nthcolumn 9 years ago | |

A long way? Real democracies do not spy on their people because it isn't a democracy anymore when you do. Whether that was always just a... well it is another matter. Business had a reasonable expectation of safe-passage. Who will want their traffic coming through the UK now? What multi-national/trans-national wants all their IP belong to the UK government? They will just go elsewhere. It's the economy stupid. Rudd is using the recent murders to her own twisted ends.

toyg 9 years ago | | |

On the other hand: China.

ouid 9 years ago | |

It doesn't seem very thin from here. Encrypted messaging is a mathematical fact that your government is attempting to deny.

If I need a communication to be secret, I will encrypt it, and I don't need special software.

fredley 9 years ago | | |

Not all people who need it can write their own encryption.

pera 9 years ago | |

> The work of police and security services has never been easy in a free society,

I think the work of security services have never been easier as it is now thanks to the massive use of social networks and mobile phones, CCTVs everywhere, GEOINT, etc. At least for the Five Eyes.

brokenmachine 9 years ago | | |

Just my opinion, but I think now they are having problems because they are getting too much information in, so separating the wheat from the chaff is difficult.

mseebach 9 years ago | |

I'm not sure that's even true. This seems more like a clipper chip moment, and more than being the beginning of a slippery slope, it made the government a laughing stock and probably sped up the pivot to encryption.

This too will fail spectacularly.

brokenmachine 9 years ago | | |

Even looking at the recent Westminster attack, is it realistic to think that monitoring of his WhatsApp messages would have prevented anything from happening? Was he already under surveillance? Could the attacker really have written anything so specific and unequivocal that it would have actually made police go to Westminster and stop his car? Police with limited resources can't just go investigating everyone who sends messages, so I doubt it would have helped anyway.

I hope you're right, but I don't think so.

The next time there is an attack, I don't think there will be an outcry that the all-pervasive surveillance has failed us, only an outcry against the terrorists (who, let's face it, are the real offenders).

ghughes 9 years ago | |

I wrote a letter to Amber Rudd based in part on your comment: https://medium.com/@flukes1/my-letter-to-amber-rudd-on-encry...

SubiculumCode 9 years ago | |

Suppose we came upon a time where some new technology had emerged allowing anyone with an average intelligence to be able to create a virulent bio weapon from materials so common and available that their restriction is impossible. In this world, we are almost surely doomed, but perhaps the only hope for survival on earth (ignore space diaspora for the moment) would be from instituting an all pervasive surveilance presence. In this scenario, I do not see the value of privacy trumping survival.

One might counter that the scenario I lay out above is not possible. However I would posit that technology enables our capacities to create/preserve and to destroy. However, perhaps stemming from thr laws of thermodynamics, it does seem that our capacities to destroy is always outpacing our capacities to create or preserve, and eventually the gap between these capacities will unsettle the center which cannot hold.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9 years ago | | |

> I do not see the value of privacy trumping survival.

Survival is not a value. Survival is a prerequisite for a lot of other values, but it's not a value in and of itself.

As many people have difficulty grasping what living in a world without privacy would be like, let me propose a different solution: We'll put everyone into solitary confinement, to ensure everyone's survival, as I do not see the value of freedom of movement trumping survival.

Would you agree with that as well? If not, why not?

Also, you might want to realize that surveillance does not ensure that your set of values gets enforced. It's the values of whoever manages to obtain that power, and whose power as a result of the surveillance might be impossible to challenge. The idea that you could create such a power structure and then guarantee that it's going to be used exclusively to prevent that bio weapon from being built and used is extremely naive. You would instead most likely find yourself alive, living in a world that makes you constantly wish for being dead, but thanks to the surveillance unable to kill yourself.

tsaoutourpants 9 years ago | | |

That's a happy Sunday afternoon thought, but we are not at that point yet. The point we are at is one in which corrupt governments seek to control us not for our own safety, but because they crave power and control.

brokenmachine 9 years ago | | |

If I can make a super weapon from air and water, how will extra surveillance stop a terrorist from doing that?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, are you saying we need more surveillance to protect us because weapons are becoming easier to produce?

SubiculumCode 9 years ago | | |

Disagree should not equal downvote.

mattbee 9 years ago |

Amber Rudd is the UK's Home Secretary not just any minister.

"We need to make sure that our intelligence services have the ability to get into situations like encrypted Whatsapp."

She has said she is "calling in" technology companies this week to try to "deliver a solution".

Marr asks if they refuse to do that, will you legislate to force them to change? She's not drawn on that.

Interview is here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08l62r7/the-andrew-mar... [from 45:18]

I understood that UK IP Bill already mean that she already has the ability to e.g. demand a backdoored version of Whatsapp be sent to a target device, but that's not covered in the interview.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/30/investigatory_power...

SimonPStevens 9 years ago |

I watched Amber Rudd interviewed by Andrew Marr this morning and the scariest thing about it was that Marr completely agreed with her. Rather than providing an opposing viewpoint and counteracting her points, he agreed with the idea that it was unacceptable for people to be allowed to use encryption and that it was terrible these companies were using it as a selling point. All he pushed her on was if she would enforce cooperation from tech companies.

madaxe_again 9 years ago | |

This isn't all that surprising, given that the government has repeatedly threatened the BBC with the loss/alteration of their charter for being critical of the government and not sufficiently jubilant about Brexit. ITV owning the BBC would arguably be a greater disaster than watered down coverage.

For a corollary see the paucity of coverage on the mass demonstration in London yesterday.

untog 9 years ago | | |

It isn't all that surprising to me either. But for different reasons. They have no idea what they are talking about.

Do we think they know our online banking software uses the same kind of encryption? Probably not. Andrew Marr not knowing this is annoying. But an entire government being ignorant of it is deeply worrying.

williamgb 9 years ago | | |

We saw prominent features on the BBC, furious headlines from the Daily Mail and self-congratulation from the Guardian. What would you have considered sufficient coverage for yesterdays demonstration?

secfirstmd 9 years ago | |

He actually asked a very unprofessional leading question.

spacecadets 9 years ago | |

Given that the BBC is a state funded organisation, why would you expect anything else?

orian 9 years ago |

How do they want to prevent someone from creating his own end-to-end encryption app? It may use other protocols to encode content (images, tweets, fb posts etc.).

For me it seems to be more in a direction of so called "Big Brother" than real counter-terrorism.

makecheck 9 years ago |

We hear most terrorists ate with forks so all forks are now banned.

Also, we were shocked to discover that virtually ALL criminals rely on something called Oxygen to perform their work so this is now a controlled substance that will be heavily regulated.

We were then terrified to learn that after banning forks, terrorists were able to successfully eat with spoons or even their hands.

Seriously, you cannot ban tools. Lawmakers have to approach this with a firm grounding in statistics (how LIKELY is a risk, relative to the magnitude of the measures to prevent it?). They also have to realize that some things are just necessary for society to function. Stop being paranoid.

brainfire 9 years ago | |

It's perfectly legal to use a fork, if you choose to take that risk. We absolutely haven't banned forks, we just urge special precautions due to the clear and obvious terrorism risks. If you want to use a fork or fork-like object (various devices that can be used for stabbing crimes like pencils or pens), just put your name on this watchlist...

humanrebar 9 years ago | |

More to the point, terrorists lock their doors! We need to ban deadbolts!

infectoid 9 years ago | | |

Seriously though. Next step would be to force people to install locks that have a master key that only intelligence services have and can only use for good reasons.

If you're ok with encryption back doors you should also be ok with govt master keys for all your stuff (house, car, bank account, etc)

satysin 9 years ago |

So they get a backdoor into WhatsApp and terrorists just move onto some other non-compromised tool. Rinse and repeat. You can't ban maths ffs.

TBH I am surprised attackers do not better destroy their electronic equipment just before they carry out their attack. Pop your phone and SSD/flash drives in the microwave on high for a few minutes is pretty much going to destroy all evidence on them, and if not then chances are you are dead anyway so whatever data they might be able to get off will most likely be useless to them anyway.

dmichulke 9 years ago | |

It's in the interest of the terrorists to get WhatsApp banned.

Terrorists just use something else while the populace feels gradually more oppressed/controlled/...

In a way they get something for nothing.

sergior 9 years ago | | |

I think this is not about terrorists (that is just a side effect), but for state ability to know what people think and talk about. That is very powerful thing to have.

Tharkun 9 years ago | |

Not sure about banning maths, but back when I was in school I had to suffer through a couple of maths teachers who were so bad that they might as well have been trying to instill a life long hatred for maths.

Wow, that sentence got away from me.

clubm8 9 years ago | |

Wouldn't putting a bunch of metal in a microwave be risky? I'm picturing something exploding and sending shards of glass into bystanders.

(Then again, a 4 Lions moment where an intrepid terrorist slits his own throat with a molten SSD wouldn't be the worst thing in the world...)

cm2187 9 years ago | |

That's why the justice system sort of works. Criminals are even dumber than law enforcement.

y4mi 9 years ago | | |

Only the ones that get caught...

s3arch 9 years ago |

>Referring to Whatsapp's system of end-to-end encryption, she said: "It is completely unacceptable. There should be no place for terrorists to hide.

Thats it guys. Mommy says no more maths.

atmosx 9 years ago | |

> "It is completely unacceptable. There should be no place for terrorists to hide."

Agreed. I'm terrorized when I hear gov representatives talking like that. Who's the terrorist, I wonder.

tunap 9 years ago | | |

I seem to remember in pre-inet news, rogue actors with mental disorders seldom made national headlines. Now an individual with no affiliation with organized hate-based groups and some twisted logic can dream of international recognition for their actions if they manage to fulfill loose criteria under the "terrorists" FUD umbrella. Dead or alive, they want to be significant in some way different from their previously banal existence, consequences be damned.

sametmax 9 years ago |

The British gov is looking more and more like the Finger from V for Vendetta. The US president more and more like the one from Idiocracy. That we tend to live up to caricatures should be an alarming sign, but I only see worries on sites like HN. Most people still don't see the catastrophy in it.

brokenmachine 9 years ago | |

> I only see worries on sites like HN. Most people still don't see the catastrophy in it.

I'm not in the US. I have actually been very impressed by the outspoken actions of anti-Trump people in the US, with the massive protests and constant (well-deserved) media scrutiny. Also I never knew I could have so much respect for Hawaiian judges.

Why they didn't bother to vote is beyond me, though. Trump is a buffoon, but he was able to successfully motivate other buffoons to actually vote.

I did hear the description of their vote as being force to choose "between a disaster and a catastrophe" though, so that might go some way to explaining it.

cJ0th 9 years ago |

If I may ask a very naive question: Do politicians like her really think encryption is dangerous or is it a devious way to expand mass surveillance?

Attacks of the past have shown that terrorists don't have a need to resort to encryption. The people involved in the Berlin attack last year, for instance, were monitored. Authorities knew they would strike but they didn't have sufficient incriminating evidence that would count in court to lock those guys up.

Even if encryption on messaging services were forbidden (which would make millions of law abiding people vulnerable in some way), terrorists could use throwaway email accounts from internet cafés and wrap their messages in password protected attachments.

GordonS 9 years ago | |

> really think encryption is dangerous or is it a devious way to expand mass surveillance

The latter her and the precious home secretary (now PM) have been banging on about how under threat we are from the terrorist hoards for years now - all so they can erode freedoms and increase mass surveillance under the guise of 'keeping Britain safe'.

The idea that banning encryption of private conversations will prevent these few crazy people from causing damage is of course ridiculous.

brokenmachine 9 years ago | | |

It's an interesting question though, isn't it.

They must know enough to know that this won't actually fix the problem, so I would have to surmise that they are just trying to do something and stay somehow relevant before their term comes to an end.

"Never mind the collateral damage, I'll be retired on a government pension by then."

fauigerzigerk 9 years ago |

It would help the UK government's argument if they didn't grossly abuse every single surveillance power they have: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/25/british-counci...

sklivvz1971 9 years ago |

Coming from the same government that wants all ISPs to keep a log of all the sites you visit. These people are beasts and as dangerous, if not more, as the perils they are supposed to save us from.

If people knew the damage these idiots do, they would be in the streets.

Oh wait, they already are in the streets...

blockoperation 9 years ago |

I'm surprised it took this long for her to bring up the subject – Theresa May would've had her soundbites prepared in advance and released within hours of the attack if she was still Home Sec.

> That is my view - it is completely unacceptable

You know what else is completely unacceptable? Technologically illiterate, authoritarian jobsworths capitalising on tragedy to push through their agendas. But that's just my view.

Home Office always seems to attract the nastiest and dumbest of politicians, but this is a whole new level of dumb, and sadly will only gain her more support, because the general public either have no idea about the implications of backdoored crypto, or simply don't have any expectation of privacy and are happy to give up what little they have left in order to feel safe.

iliketosleep 9 years ago | |

Sure she'll get support and they may even be stupid enough to attempt to enact this stuff. But rest assured there'll be a massive backlash from big business and various political fallouts from the scandals that will ensue.

Then some genius will come up with what's essentially an "encryption is illegal for terrorists" bill and we'll have the best of both worlds: full use of encryption where we need it, whilst the terrorists can't use it because it's illegal!!

kakarot 9 years ago | | |

Yeah that'll be totally humane, just like how it's illegal to commit crimes while wearing body armor in most of the US! Or like how street dealers and felons aren't allowed to carry guns or vote! We are being declawed.

M_Grey 9 years ago | |

Listening to some old episodes of 'The News Quiz', and I'm struck by the fact that this is not a whole new level of anything at all. If anything, this is par for the course, and Theresa May being in power at all is a result of that.

rijncur 9 years ago |

It is the duty of the Home Secretary (and the UK's various nosey institutions - e.g. intelligence agencies, police, etc) to continuously badger us for this information - unfortunately, it's pretty much part of the job description.

It is our duty, as the public, to continuously say "no".

Disregarding any negative consequences, their motivations are pretty transparent - there's little doubt that being able to read everyone's private messages will enable the intelligence services to better do their jobs. However, as Edward Snowden and others have already shown to us many times over the last few years, the UK government can't be trusted with this responsibility - and that this is probably the thin end of the wedge. Britain is already the closest thing that Europe has to a surveillance state, and the number of people killed in the UK by terrorism is vanishingly small - we are hundreds of times more likely to die in a car accident. Is it really worth giving up the last vestiges of our privacy for a little bit more security?

sn41 9 years ago |

In the 1970s, an American president had to resign because of some bugs planted.

Now, private conversation is illegal.

I guess it leads to "ownlife".

Doctor_Fegg 9 years ago |

> She said it was a case of getting together "the best people who understand the technology, who understand the necessary hashtags"

Our Government is an absolute disgrace; and unfortunately, one to which there is currently no credible, strong opposition.

(from https://www.buzzfeed.com/matthewchampion/necessary-hashtags)

anon1385 9 years ago | |

If you are referring to the current state of the Labour party then that's irrelevant. Even when Labour were "strong" opposition, or were in power with large majorities, they have had very authoritarian positions on this kind of thing.

Labour were supporters of the recent IP Bill (it actually applied restrictions to some of the crazy powers the last Labour government gave to the police, which gives you an indication of their general position on these things). Labour have had authoritarian positions on crime and policing issues since Blair became shadow Home Secretary (1992). It has been part of their 'tough on crime' strategy of attacking the Conservatives from the right since that point and was a core part of the New Labour strategy.

The only thing a "stronger" Labour opposition would get you in this situation is a parliament even more united in support for restrictions on encryption.

ue_ 9 years ago | | |

It's a damn shame as a Communist myself to agree with Labour on various issues, but so vehemently disagree with them on the abstention or even outright support of spying bills.

imron 9 years ago | |

And if the best people who understand the technology and 'all the necessary hashtags' say it can't be done?

Because that's where we're at currently.

pizza 9 years ago | |

The emperor's new hashtags..

drcross 9 years ago |

It's an incredibly foolish thing for a minister to suggest. She demonstrates a complete lack of understanding on the subject and has commited political seppuku. Has she never read Orwell, Huxley, seen articles about tyrannical governments or even heard about the reasons the US constitution was drawn up?

grey-area 9 years ago | |

has commited political seppuku

Since the current prime minister supports her, I doubt it. It's an absurd position, but not without support in the current administration, just like her outspoken views on immigration.

GordonS 9 years ago | | |

> Since the current prime minister supports her

And, I'm sorry to say, a large chunk of the public, who have for years been force fed rubbish from politicians and the media alike about the huge terrorist threat that threatens to destroy our country (when in reality just about anything else you can think of is more of a threat than the odd crazy with a knife and car...)

vidarh 9 years ago | | |

Specifically the current PM is as bad or worse.

logingone 9 years ago |

Poorly timed opportunism. Police have said the attacker acted alone, so he wasn't using encrypted comms to talk to anyone.

clubm8 9 years ago | |

I really hate this "going dark" narrative.

They can track his purchases via his debit card, his movements via CCTV + cell tower records, intercept his emails... but there's one bit of his digital life that's inaccessible and we're "going dark?"

We are burning bright with data. More data does not necessarily mean less terrorism.

The English might be better served by posting some armed officers in high value areas. The French do this at major train stations and tourist spots like the Eiffel Tower. This doesn't stop terrorism, but vastly reduces the body count.

Frankly, I think it's laughable that countries which resisted the Nazis will let 10 people dying make them consider rolling back civil liberties.

ryan-c 9 years ago | | |

I posted about this on twitter this morning, and it seems appropriate to repeat it here:

For most of history, governments have not had the ability to easily monitor the communications of their citizens. Widely available, user friendly encryption tools are just returning us to normal. Well, except for the massive trail of metadata everyone now leaves.

cpncrunch 9 years ago | |

He sent a message 2 mins before the attack, and they want to know what that message was and who it was sent to, in case he wasn't acting alone.

However, can't they already find out who the message was sent to? Whatsapp obviously has to have that information, and it appears they will give it to law enforcement:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/01/22/whats...

I'm not sure that knowing the contents of that message will really help more than knowing the person who it was sent to.

It seems that they had this guy on their radar a few years ago, but didn't think he was worth keeping an eye on, so even if they could decrypt whatsapp messages it wouldn't really have helped them.

ohthehugemanate 9 years ago |

There are a few reasons to laugh at her position.

* The UK government leads the "free world" in ignoring its own warrant process, and pursuing a "collect it all" strategy for commsec. UK citizens have no reason to trust that their government, given such access, would not abuse it. They've abused all their other access thus far.

* Privacy and Security help normal citizens and criminals alike. This is as true for a locked front door as it is for an encrypted message. We grant governments the ability to violate privacy under warrant - they may snoop, spy, enter our homes, and read our mail. We do not grant them the ability to violate security, however. They still have to pick the lock, steam the envelope, and crack the safe. These are important distinctions. We do not engineer a backdoor into all encrypted messages, for the same reason we don't mandate a government master key for all doors.

* The idea that you can legislate math out of existence is a joke.

There is one reason to cry at her position.

* They will eventually legislate this way anyway.

dijit 9 years ago |

"He sent an encrypted message from whatsapp"

Yes, and then he went and did something stupid with easily accessible tools and acted alone.

You might have an argument if he was part of a coordinated attack against something but lone-wolf terrorism has always been defined as unpreventable by security services such as SIS. Once radicalised it's impossible to prevent individuals doing stupid stuff.

The only thing she has revealed his the conservative parties desire for totalitarian control. :(

kelnos 9 years ago | |

> You might have an argument if he was part of a coordinated attack

No.

Even ignoring the erosion of privacy angle, this just doesn't work. Outlaw encryption, and only outlaws will use encryption. Provide government backdoors into the popular commercial messaging apps, and people coordinating terror attacks will just use custom, unknown, private encrypted messaging apps.

dijit 9 years ago | | |

I'm going to play devils advocate here, I also dislike the erosion of privacy (enough that I even left the UK).

But you _can_ make the argument that if only outlaws use encryption then they're painting a target on their back, which leads to greater scrutiny by security services.

This is reasonably achieved by the current dragnet surveillance systems in place, along with ISP's logging everything.

I don't agree with it, of course I don't, but that's probably an angle people could take- But the angle Amber Rudd took is even more starved of sense.

It's like she didn't ask the appropriate question: "What could we have done to prevent this attack" and the follow up "If we had direct access to his phone and all of his communication information, what could we have caught" and the answer is _nothing_. He used tools commonly available to him, acted alone, probably told nobody.

Anyway, tell the bad guys you're watching the comms and they'll figure out how to talk, they're motivated and smart.

tormeh 9 years ago | | |

>Outlaw encryption, and only outlaws will use encryption.

Well, if only outlaws used encryption and you sent a non-plaintext message then the police would knock on your door at 04:00 the next morning. That's what happens in Morocco if you like something related to terrorism on Facebook. A bit extreme, yes, but that's how some countries do it.

Sure, technically sophisticated enemies know not to like things on Facebook and know to use steganography, but most don't know and those that learn it through terrorist networks have a long vulnerable period where they are malicious but before they become sophisticated.

ktta 9 years ago |

Hmm, this definitely brings up an interesting discussion I don't think HN has had before, especially something in a similar vein since Apple+San Bernardino fiasco.

Obviously privacy is something that HN holds very close to its heart. But I'm interested in what do people here have to say about the privacy features are used by terrible people to do terrible things.

And I want to share something that I think is one of the best arguments for privacy, complete privacy. I do agree with this completely: https://moxie.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to-hide/

badminton1 9 years ago |

It's just reverse psychology.

They have the means to break, degrade or bypass the encryption and they emit statements like these so people remain confident that they're not being spied on.

This routinely happens after leaks reveal that certain type of traffic is being targeted. In this particular case, Wikileaks.

In the past after all the PRISM collusion was revealed, all the PRISM partners started their PR campaigns showing their "commitment to privacy", and the soap opera with law enforcement agencies claiming they couldn't decrypt devices. In reality they have many tricks they have used for years now, like setting up a fake cell antenna, impersonate a phone carrier to take over a device.

LoSboccacc 9 years ago | |

precisely. I was around when only hatters and nutjobs talked about echelon, getting ridiculed on internet and the outernet, only to be proven correct decades later

people have very short memory, it seems.

callesgg 9 years ago |

How can it be acceptable to say shit like this when you have such a position within the government.

yellow_viper 9 years ago | |

Because we've accepted it. We know the government is watching us 24/7 and no one cares. This is the new norm.

Stories like this fill me with a slight bit of hope that encryption works

aluhut 9 years ago | | |

I wonder how they are not even busy explaining how this could happen with all that surveillance already in place. I mean no camera jumped down the pole to stop the car...

kristofferR 9 years ago | |

Britain is well known around the world for not caring about privacy/surveillance.

jansho 9 years ago | | |

And the most CCTV-ed society.

blunte 9 years ago | |

Seriously, have you seen any US news lately? You Brits look like geniuses compared to what we have.

derpadelt 9 years ago |

For two decades I've been waiting for popular support for a complete or at least Clipper-chip-style encryption ban in the "free world". It always was on the other far end of the spectrum, directly oppsite questions like IV/nonce choice, PRNG initialization flaws, RSA attack vectors. I have great fear for the freedom and living standard of my kids when I read these top-level news pieces. We stand a real test and we will have to argue against hatred, fear and terrorism. Let's just hope our leaders have no-nonsense advisors as well as those that inspire such news.

slashrsm 9 years ago |

This is a complete nonsense. Such move would simply encourage "bad guys" to find other means of secure communication while exposing everyone else.

jimnotgym 9 years ago |

When you take away our freedom in order to stop terrorism, then the terrorists win. This is one guy in an estate car. Amber Rudd is not a democrat if she really believes this

hudathun 9 years ago |

Best ban everything that can be misused by terrorists... cars, knives, encrypted messaging.

wiubiube 9 years ago | |

that's the blindspot isn't it ? What's the one common thing about recent terrorist acts ? Vehicles used as weapons. Yet nobody's calling for a ban on the use of vehicles

rorykoehler 9 years ago | | |

Even one level up... Since when is a crazy individual with a knife in a car a terrorist? He's just a crazy idiot and we should call him so. If this is modern day terrorism we have nothing to be worried about.

kwhitefoot 9 years ago | | |

Only because it is not yet feasible. Once autonomous vehicles become common there will be pressure to make driving a car manually difficult, expensive, and ultimately a crime.

vidarh 9 years ago | |

Politicians.

Khaine 9 years ago |

Reading all of the comments I am deeply concerned. Everyone who is opposed to this is doing 'their side' a disservice.

Comments are about how stupid, or ill informed the Home Secretary and advisors are, or that they are being blackmailed by the intelligence services. Seriously? These kinds of comments are not going to get the broader public to support your ideals.

I think you misunderstand why she (and law enforcement) believe that they should have access to the messages. If the terrorist called someone they can get a warrant for the metadata and see who he called and whether it is relevant to the investigation. If the terrorist sent an SMS they can get a warrant for it. However, if the terrorist sends a WhatsApp message what can they get? Why should a WhatsApp message be treated different from an SMS?

That is what we as the tech community need to explain, why backdoors, weak encryption, and escrow are not a solution.

I value my privacy. I want my messages to be secure. But if the tech community keep acting like most of the comments on this, we will lose.

ourcat 9 years ago |

So when they discover that he wrote and sent actual letters, will they then demand access to open our mail?

Also: Will breaking encryption stop a man grabbing a knife and jumping into his car? No.

gsnedders 9 years ago | |

> So when they discover that he wrote and sent actual letters, will they then demand access to open our mail?

Except, like, with a warrant, they can already open our mail. That's a pre-existing power.

The difference is under the current legislation a warrant doesn't get them the ability to read WhatsApp conversations; that's the point of contention here, and the difference with the above is perceived to be the problem.

iamben 9 years ago |

If the govt. was to force WhatsApp's hand, I'm sure we'd see democracy in action if they prevented everyone using the app for 24 hours, replacing the facility to message with a note telling users to contact their local MP (with clickable email / phone numbers - and maybe links to the ORG).

JoshTriplett 9 years ago | |

Or even just put a banner at the top of the app.

bencollier49 9 years ago | | |

And then suddenly Facebook find themselves legally responsible for the things published on their platform, perhaps. They're not going to stand up to the government, they're in too weak a position.

ajuc 9 years ago |

By the same logic if we ban freedom of speech terrorism won't be able to speak with each other.

Seriously who voted these idiots.

singold 9 years ago |

Well, she could start herself publishing all her emails, how can we know she isn't a covert terrorist?

sidcool 9 years ago |

Even though the article mentions specifically about UK, there are many in the US who hold the same belief. If you want to ban encryption because terrorists might misuse it, what about Guns? Then it is a matter of "freedom".

Entangled 9 years ago |

Dear minister, can I whisper in my wife's ear while having sex or do I have to get permission from government?

wiubiube 9 years ago | |

can I talk to myself using my inner monologue please ?

sjayasinghe 9 years ago | | |

only if it involves something deemed legal by the Thought Police and the Party.

id122015 9 years ago |

Smartness should be banmed. They are too much of a problem! Everyday disruption disruption disruption...

Evolution should be banned too and all those books about biology or astronomy. God made it all!

Asdfbla 9 years ago |

I morbidly curious how many terrorist attacks we are away from actual laws that will attempt to outlaw encryption as used by WhatsApp (even if it wouldn't make sense to do that). Resistance against such measures outside of the tech scene would probably be low. The "I've got nothing to hide" mentality is actually quite widespread among the population, so I don't even think it would be a risky move politically.

dfraser992 9 years ago |

I assume someone has already brought this up, but it is late and I can't read through 300 comments. From what I recall and have read, this individual has been on the radar of the security services since 2010 and so was a known potential threat. With a history of violence and criminal behavior. Yet effective monitoring of such individuals WAS NOT DONE and apparently isn't. Instead, there is this post-hoc demand that all of the public must give up their right to privacy because the idea of 'pre-crime' prevention is actually viable...

complete and utter bollocks.

So a blanket violation of law abiding citizens rights is more important than actually keeping tabs on known threats more closely and effectively. Pedophiles are viewed with less disdain than terrorists it seems. And the threat of terrorism is trumpeted to the heavens while pedophilia is apparently more rampant is UK society...

It is quite illogical that law abiding people suddenly snap and decide to drive their cars into groups of tourists. How prevalent are the actual potential terrorists - i.e. those with a history of violence, trouble with the law, radicalization, etc? If I knew those stats, then I personally would be better able to judge the claims of the authorities. But I don't have those stats and so the logical assumption is that their claims are exaggerated shite designed to drum up fear and etc etc. Meanwhile idiotic claims that all encryption must be banned or tapped, even for law abiding businesses (does no one remember Cameron's proposals?) are floated... nothing but Band-aids all the way down.

I could move back to America, but at this point, that is like jumping out of the frying pan. I really need to learn a second language, preferably Mongolian.

hanselot 9 years ago |

How difficult would it be for these so called terrorists to develop their own end to end encrypted app? Perhaps something masquerading as something common like any port under 1000? It is feasible that the elimination of whatsapp/telegram/signal encryption would just lead to a way more complicated encryption system developed internally to these organisations.

makomk 9 years ago | |

Not that difficult, but it'd almost certainly have major security flaws that GHCQ and the NSA could exploit, because homebrew end-to-end encryption tends to. The bigger problem is that merely using an Isis-branded chat application is the equivalent of sending a text message to the security services saying "hello, I'm a potential terrorist, please pay special attention to my every movement". Even the Tor project hasn't actually managed to reliably disguise their protocol as something else, and they have a bunch of smart people working on it with the advantage that countries tend to reveal the fact they've been detected through blocking rather than just quietly monitoring the people using it and rounding them up the moment they try something.

goodplay 9 years ago | | |

I generally agree, but intelligence groups have to first find the signal they want to monitor. Modern steganography techniques coupled with the free randomness you get from the physical world gives you much to work with. And that's assuming common tech will be used.

Also, designing a secure general purpose messaging system is much harder that designing a system tailored for a specific use case.

Banning encryption by law is like demanding, loudly, that people not talk behind your back. Some will listen, and some will not. Only legitimate users and use cases will suffer.

fooker 9 years ago | |

You just described a rather common programming assignment at most schools..

sergior 9 years ago |

How about they look into their business partner Saudi Arabia first? It sounds like as if they let this country poison the minds of mentally ill people in hope the attacks they carry on could be used as an excuse to expand control of the society. Use of this tragedy to do just that is simply disgusting and put in question what government is actually doing.

tinus_hn 9 years ago |

How would that have prevented anything? As if they'd have responded within 2 minutes to some guy sending weird messages.

makomk 9 years ago | |

The message he sent right before the attack will likely not have been his first communication about it. There's been a pattern of Isis operatives abroad guiding and supporting terrorists in detail via end-to-end encrypted messaging for weeks or months, right up until the moment they attack: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/world/asia/isis-messaging... Presumably the British police are assuming that this is like those previous attacks, but they haven't managed to obtain the actual message contents after the fact this time around for some reason.

GordonS 9 years ago | | |

Come on. If this was really ISIS, then we plainly have nothing to fear.

My bet is that he's just a random crazy, but of course these days it suits the political narrative to brand such people 'terrorists' to stoke public fear

visarga 9 years ago | |

Suppose they intercept WhatsApp. The need to react to each suspicious message within the minute, and be perfectly efficient in catching terrorists while avoiding innocents.

Of course they would need to intercept all other communication services, including home-made ones.

vixen99 9 years ago |

Some people will simply refuse to let all and sundry (we have no idea as to who reads and acts on intercepted emails) to read private emails and they will therefore turn to steganography or one time pads with a seemingly ambiguous pre-arranged code. Good luck with reading the latter or even thinking it has a hidden message.

razzaj 9 years ago |

Isnt it weird that drasticly restrictive all encompassing rules are hastily pushed after attacks? Blanket Decryption of messages, and other privacy suppression rules will make intelligence agencies into super powers with too much control at a very reduced cost (less messy assassinations, or physical threats needed)

brokenmachine 9 years ago | |

That's the perfect time to hastily push them through!

Zenst 9 years ago |

So a statement that he acted alone by the met police is bing utterly ignored. Ironically no mention of banning 4x4 cars and that frankly puts this whole situation into perspective - government ignorance of encryption, once again.

brokenmachine 9 years ago | |

If we could bundle a 4WD car ban in with the new legislation, I might actually change my mind about the massive loss of basic freedoms. :-)

nbanks 9 years ago |

One reason it's good that governments cannot force WhatsApp to disable end-to-end encryption is that different governments have different definitions of nefarious activity. While the British Government could arguably use a backdoor to stop terrorist attacks, what would stop Pakistan or Saudi Arabia from using the same back door to enforce blasphemy laws? The issue is the same: should a private company help law enforcement by disabling encryption?

It's nice to know WhatsApp can help people break the law in places where the law itself is immoral.

bvwiqvqebui 9 years ago |

what if the guy read a book and agreed with it because he was an sad angry teenager with no life

Symbiote 9 years ago | |

Possession of The Anarchist Cookbook has been used as evidence against terrorist suspects in Britain, and also as a crime itself, "Possession of terrorist material". In the latter case, the 17 year old's argument was pretty much what you suggest, and he was cleared.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7030096.stm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchist_Cookbook#Legalit...

k_sze 9 years ago | |

Then the obvious answer is to ban books, right?

Right?

bigbugbag 9 years ago | | |

This is a thing in France.

chippy 9 years ago | |

They have access to library records because of that scenario. They would be able to access online bookstore records. The book may not have been purchased of course, or may have been banned for sale in a country - many illegal copies of books were made in Communist states in the 80s for that reason.

noarchy 9 years ago |

"Home Secretary Amber Rudd told Sky News it was "completely unacceptable" that police and security services had not been able to crack the heavily encrypted service."

This is great news, actually. It means that WhatsApp's encryption works, and stonewalls the efforts of state actors (or at least, hers) to break it.

That said, we don't know if she's lying about this, or not.

benevol 9 years ago |

They don't need to touch encryption in any way. It's way simpler to subvert the endpoints, as most people use closed-source operating systems such as iOS and Android which offer closed-source applications.

All they need to do is to pressure Apple and Google to keep some backdoors open, which is more than realistic, as Snowden's revelations have shown a couple of years ago.

sjayasinghe 9 years ago | |

Even better, why not introduce backdoors at the hardware level?

ahussain 9 years ago |

Shameful way to capitalize on the recent Westminster attack. See Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" for more.

doktrin 9 years ago |

Looking away from the fact that what they want isn't actually achievable, what does the UK risk by beginning to go down this road? What consequences could this potentially have for their domestic tech sector?

My intuition says that they stand to lose more than they could possibly gain, but I'm curious to hear a more knowledgeable perspective.

mrkgnao 9 years ago |

Thought-experimentally: could we potentially be able to scan message databases for the absence of certain phrases, using something like [1], but in a probabilistic manner akin to that of a Bloom filter? This would ensure that law enforcement would be able to flag certain keywords with a nonzero (and nontrivial) false-positive rate. That way, repeated flags end up identifying potentially interesting members of society, without proof and with data inadmissible as reliable evidence in a court of law.

Of course, one runs the risk of the existence of false positives being forgotten, TLA/government pressure to reduce the false positive rate, and so on. But I think this is a slightly interesting way to (partially) preserve privacy while satisfying lawmakers who demand that there be some way for them to listen in on (what should ideally be completely private) data. (This is, of course, only possible once one drops the axiom of privacy being an absolute right: I don't personally support doing this at all.)

[1]: https://crypto.stanford.edu/portia/papers/HardNDB.pdf

kortex 9 years ago | |

Theoretically, I'm sure some crafty solution like that exists, but then that is no longer true end-to-end encryption. It's 'leaky' E2E, which in the eyes of most crypto enthusiasts, is practically worse than open channel, because it gives a false sense of security.

codewithcheese 9 years ago |

In these digital always online times; its like claiming no one should be allowed to have a private conversation.

hanoz 9 years ago |

I wonder how she felt about private communication during her directorships in off shore tax havens?

al2o3cr 9 years ago |

In a similar vein, to prevent corruption and bribery we should require Ms. Rudd et al to post all email exchanges (official or otherwise) they engage in publicly, along with their bank statements.

After all, we can't allow corrupt politicians ANYWHERE TO HIDE. ;)

secfirstmd 9 years ago |

It's going to be a total clusterf*ck when the UK leaves the EU and starts introducing draconian intelligence gathering laws that go further than the EU regulations permit. Think Privacy Shield style problems but much worse...

ianopolous 9 years ago |

The relevant discussion is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yIPuHsB8q8

threatofrain 9 years ago |

I assume that the UK government has been doing these extremely pro-surveillance, anti-encryption, and anti-porn stances because they detect sufficient support from the UK population?

benevol 9 years ago |

On BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39396578

gjjrfcbugxbhf 9 years ago |

Theresa May is just using the tragic deaths of some innocents to push her own political agenda. Pathetic political games at their worst.

royka118 9 years ago |

Is it technically feasible to have a back door and still be `end to end` encrypted ?

ktta 9 years ago | |

The definition of end-to-end encryption is that the decryption keys are only available to the client. Now your question asks the question of where the backdoor should be.

It is feasible. The backdoor should be at a very low level (not say a sandboxed application) from which basically nothing can hide on the device.

joshvm 9 years ago | |

Yes, this was revealed by the recent agency leaks. Cracking end to end encryption is still extremely difficult (currently impossible?). It's much easier to get root on a target's phone and run a keylogger or break into the app. The messages are still end-end encrypted, but you can sniff them before they're sent and after they're received since they're shown to the user in plaintext.

Neliquat 9 years ago | | |

But then the side channel (pre enc info) is also sent, using different encryption? Otherwise, just as broken.

drcross 9 years ago | |

The recent wikileaks documents from the CIA say that yes it is possibly but instead of blanket backdoor they have to be specifically targeted. Whether that's the current state of affairs of not, I dont know.

pestaa 9 years ago | |

Yes, but the back door must be placed on either `end`, so an eavesdropper needs to intercept communication before encryption or after decryption.

sergior 9 years ago | |

Yes, you can encrypt messages by yourself and that way it doesn't matter if the mean of communication is insecure.

intrasight 9 years ago |

First global warming deniers then mathematics deniers. Where do we go from here?

I_am_neo 9 years ago |

Messaging services without encryption is unacceptable - TRUTH

visarga 9 years ago |

> "That is my view - it is completely unacceptable, there should be no place for terrorists to hide."

I am sure a ban on encryption would work.

Hey, guys, I just had a great idea. Let's ban bombs, knifes, and driving into people. That would fix the terrorism problem. Once it is illegal, no terrorist would dare do it!!!

I'm wondering why Churchill didn't think to ban the Enigma machine. If only England was led by smart people like the British interior minister...

techrich 9 years ago |

as usual she has no idea.

vinceyuan 9 years ago |

If I have to choose one from end-to-end encryption and security, I will choose security. I don't mind my WhatsApp chats are scanned by police's software, if it can reduce terrorism. Of course, we need to make sure it is used for anti-terrorism only.

Update: One solution of 'make sure' is the source code of the monitoring software must be reviewed by independent and trusted software engineers/experts.

PS. Downvoting my post doesn't solve any problem. If you have any better idea, welcome to post it out. Thanks