After London Attack, U.K. Wants Access to Encrypted WhatsApp Messages

>For many policy makers, that includes opening up services like WhatsApp and Telegram, a rival messaging tool, to national intelligence agencies when they are investigating terrorist activities.

>“We do want them to recognize that they have a responsibility to engage with government, to engage with law enforcement agencies when there is a terrorist situation,” Ms. Rudd told the BBC on Sunday, referring to tech companies. “They cannot get away with saying we are in a different situation. They are not.”

>Ms. Rudd’s demands are expected to be repeated in person at the session with the tech executives, although no further details of the meeting have been released.

>Lena Pietsch, a Facebook spokeswoman, said in an email: “We are horrified by the attack carried out in London,” adding that the company was “cooperating with law enforcement.”

>The move by British lawmakers is the latest effort in Europe to police how internet giants operate online. This month, a German government minister, Heiko Maas, said that he would propose new legislation that could fine tech companies around $50 million if they failed to stop hate speech being spread on digital platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Google’s YouTube.

>A number of high-profile brands and advertisers have recently pulled their marketing from these online services after their ads were displayed next to potential hate speech.

>Officials in Britain, however, are going a step further. And by demanding that intelligence agencies be allowed to read encrypted messages, Ms. Rudd is reiterating long-held plans to gain more control over digital services.
...

>Last year, the country passed legislation giving law enforcement greater powers to make telecommunications and technology companies hand over digital information relating to intelligence operations. The law also required tech companies to bypass encryption protocols, where possible, to aid ongoing investigations.

>In the United States, the authorities have made similar demands. The F.B.I. asked Apple to unlock the iPhone used by one of the attackers who killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., in December 2015. Apple resisted, and the F.B.I. later said it had found a way to unlock the phone without the company’s help.

>Tech companies say they cannot hand over such information because internet messages are sent through so-called end-to-end encryption.

>This technology scrambles messages to make them indecipherable to anyone but their intended recipient. It also makes messages unreadable when they pass through an app’s server, meaning companies do not have the ability to provide the information to law enforcement even if they wanted to.

>If such technology is weakened, campaigners say, governments and hackers could gain access to encrypted messages, reducing people’s ability to communicate privately online.

>“Compelling companies to put back doors into encrypted services would make millions of ordinary people less secure online,” said Jim Killock, executive director of Open Rights Group, a British nonprofit. “We all rely on encryption to protect our ability to communicate, shop and bank safely.”

related:
https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/27/social-media-firms-facing-fresh-political-pressure-after-london-terror-attack/

Facebook have blood on their hands.

Honestly at this point I'm more concerned about terrorism than my privacy on Facebook

>>125876
It's easy for me to sit on my high horse and endorse the right of anonymous communication away from government or private intrusion, but I still side with the owners of encrypted communication in every case. Government intrusion remains the single strongest threat to public discourse and democracy, and even though terrorists use these means to organize their attacks secretly, the risk of being profiled for government surveilance is more threatening than a few isolated attacks.

Maybe instead of curtailing the rights of citizens, we should instead look at removing the sources of unrest, such as the removal of destructive foreign agents, first.

>>125952
>the removal of destructive foreign agents, first.

And how will we know without seeing their communication?

>>125955
I think you can make a pretty good argument that many of the perpetrators of these crimes share a common background. New immigrant arrivals, or children of recent immigrants. It's very rare for properly assimilated citizens to be a force for terrorism within your country.

Tightening up on immigration laws would greatly aid in preventing these attacks, as would properly assimilating and naturalizing existing immigrants into your population. Allowing them to continue living in enclaves and neighborhoods with their own laws will simply breed dissent.

>>125876
Hehheh... I saw this coming in 1994 when I was playing around with PGP. Back then the NSA Clipper Chip was the fight. But govts don't like to be put in their place, they'll force their demands eventually and harm those that continue to circumvent their efforts against having backdoors installed.

What a future we face.

>>125876
Why remove the people that are obviously responsible when you can violate the rights of your citizens?