Govt now wants access to all encrypted messages

digitalscream

Fretwired said:

FazTheWookie said:

The next time someone you know uses the "if you've got nothing to hide..." line, ask them if they're willing to unlock their phone and hand it to you!

But should a government be allowed to see the messages of a known terrorist? Surely the average person would have nothing to fear if a government had to legally prove a need to access data from certain individuals in front of a panel of judges. Access would be on a case by case basis.

The governments of the world already have full access to a huge amount of communication channels, and they haven't exactly proved effective at using that access to prevent 100% of terrorist attacks. Why? Because all they can do - and all they'll ever be able to do - is react.

At this stage, the WhatsApp thing is pointless. Three things can happen now:

1 - WhatsApp removes the encryption or provides a back door. Bad people stop using WhatsApp and use something else instead, but everybody else has lost their private communication.
Result: The government can't read the bad people's communications.

2 - WhatsApp don't remove the encryption and put two fingers up to the governments.
Result: The government can't read the bad people's communications.

3 - The government blocks WhatsApp, so bad people stop using WhatsApp and use something else instead but everybody else has lost their private communication.
Result: The government can't read the bad people's communications.

EDIT: In fact, the best-case scenario for the government is #2 now. Why? Because they still have access to the metadata; knowing where messages are come from and going to still provides them with information (and I believe, given WhatsApp's Signal architecture, that's possible), so they can use a court order under current law to see all that. In #1 and #3, they're dealing with a total unknown again.

stickyfiddle

Wis for @digitalscream. It's also important to add that access can't be on a case-by-case basis. Government access could be, but if the backdoor exists you can be quite certain there will be a bunch of bad people trying to find it, and eventually one of them will. 

HAL9000

57Deluxe said:

Br9zFdYkaDQo49cjTv1J/Dn6p86TFULDHMqpY5osZjdM+/DIhd+CiSJTC+J4Z54MJoXR43t5Ys63ogzA3KYjmdVC2SqmDtekocDN/pd1RQLl2LPF4HJcLxZXdjNdgtcs

Sorry to nitpick but there's a typo in the second word....

Evilmags

Fretwired said:

FazTheWookie said:

The next time someone you know uses the "if you've got nothing to hide..." line, ask them if they're willing to unlock their phone and hand it to you!

But should a government be allowed to see the messages of a known terrorist? Surely the average person would have nothing to fear if a government had to legally prove a need to access data from certain individuals in front of a panel of judges. Access would be on a case by case basis.

Frankly a competent security service would know how to hack it. And a competent civil service would know how to advise on technology issues. And if it does not it should fucking hire somebody who does. 

digitalscream

Evilmags said:

Fretwired said:

FazTheWookie said:

The next time someone you know uses the "if you've got nothing to hide..." line, ask them if they're willing to unlock their phone and hand it to you!

But should a government be allowed to see the messages of a known terrorist? Surely the average person would have nothing to fear if a government had to legally prove a need to access data from certain individuals in front of a panel of judges. Access would be on a case by case basis.

Frankly a competent security service would know how to hack it. And a competent civil service would know how to advise on technology issues. And if it does not it should fucking hire somebody who does. 

It's unhackable - the architecture is such that it's mathematically impossible to guarantee decryption with any current or planned technology in the absence of the encryption key.

crunchman

Fretwired said:

FazTheWookie said:

The next time someone you know uses the "if you've got nothing to hide..." line, ask them if they're willing to unlock their phone and hand it to you!

But should a government be allowed to see the messages of a known terrorist? Surely the average person would have nothing to fear if a government had to legally prove a need to access data from certain individuals in front of a panel of judges. Access would be on a case by case basis.

Presumably they have got his phone.  The messages are stored on there.  They should be going about it that way, not by compromising everyone's online security.

Evilmags

digitalscream said:

Evilmags said:

Fretwired said:

FazTheWookie said:

The next time someone you know uses the "if you've got nothing to hide..." line, ask them if they're willing to unlock their phone and hand it to you!

But should a government be allowed to see the messages of a known terrorist? Surely the average person would have nothing to fear if a government had to legally prove a need to access data from certain individuals in front of a panel of judges. Access would be on a case by case basis.

Frankly a competent security service would know how to hack it. And a competent civil service would know how to advise on technology issues. And if it does not it should fucking hire somebody who does. 

It's unhackable - the architecture is such that it's mathematically impossible to guarantee decryption with any current or planned technology in the absence of the encryption key.

 Directly hack what's app's servers then. If that autistic guy managed to hack the US state department it must be possible. What's app is fairly mainstream and can have it's business threatened (privatley of course) without generating headlines. 

digitalscream

Evilmags said:

digitalscream said:

Evilmags said:

Fretwired said:

FazTheWookie said:

The next time someone you know uses the "if you've got nothing to hide..." line, ask them if they're willing to unlock their phone and hand it to you!

But should a government be allowed to see the messages of a known terrorist? Surely the average person would have nothing to fear if a government had to legally prove a need to access data from certain individuals in front of a panel of judges. Access would be on a case by case basis.

Frankly a competent security service would know how to hack it. And a competent civil service would know how to advise on technology issues. And if it does not it should fucking hire somebody who does. 

It's unhackable - the architecture is such that it's mathematically impossible to guarantee decryption with any current or planned technology in the absence of the encryption key.

 Directly hack what's app's servers then. If that autistic guy managed to hack the US state department it must be possible. What's app is fairly mainstream and can have it's business threatened (privatley of course) without generating headlines. 

Have you read nothing I've posted in this thread? The messages are encrypted at the client. WhatsApp's servers never see the unencrypted content, and they have no means by which to access the encryption key. WhatsApp could quite easily open up all of the data on their servers and all of the traffic in and out (in fact, the authorities already have this traffic), without any fear that law enforcement would be any closer to decrypting it.

This isn't Hollywood.

gubble

I'm not happy about the government having access to my personal whatsapp messages. I have absolutely nothing to hide, but by the same token I don't see why they should be allowed to read everything I say to people on there.

Yes I'm doing nothing wrong but bythe same token you could build up a pretty good picture of my life by reading my messages. Prime example I text my wife every morning when I arrive at work to let her know I'm here safely. 

If someone is looking at you to try and find a link to anything dodgy or illegal they'll find it regardless of it being innocent or not. To anyone reading this if you were questioned by the police about why you were looking for ways to stop the government reading your private messages and they know this because you read this thread what would you say? 

@gubble accessed the fretboard 8 times per day, he read a conversation about how whatsapp encryption is used - how do you explain this? I'm innocent, I know I am but I bet they'd use this sort of thing against me if they wanted to

Haych

Emp_Fab said:

How do you feel about privacy issues ?  Where do you sit in the 'security v privacy' debate.  Are you a "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" type, or a "the govt has no right to read any of my private communications, I'd rather take the hit on letting bad guys talk in secrecy than surrender any of my civil liberty to a big-brother state" type ?

Privacy 100%.  Yes I get that people do bad things but unencrypting messaging services isn't going to stop people from doing bad things, they will find another way if security services start eaves-dropping on people. 

Also, the argument of not having to be worried if you're not doing anything wrong doesn't hold water for me.  We live in a very fast paced world and the possibility that something I do now quite legally becoming prohibited in the future worries me deeply.

VimFuego

I'd be happy with the govt knowing all my secrets, so long as they let us know all theirs.

57Deluxe

HAL9000 said:

57Deluxe said:

Br9zFdYkaDQo49cjTv1J/Dn6p86TFULDHMqpY5osZjdM+/DIhd+CiSJTC+J4Z54MJoXR43t5Ys63ogzA3KYjmdVC2SqmDtekocDN/pd1RQLl2LPF4HJcLxZXdjNdgtcs

Sorry to nitpick but there's a typo in the second word....

Just as well you ain't in charge then cos is exactly this that gets innocent ppl sent down!

http://www.online-toolz.com/tools/text-encryption-decryption.php

Evilmags

digitalscream said:

Evilmags said:

digitalscream said:

Evilmags said:

Fretwired said:

FazTheWookie said:

The next time someone you know uses the "if you've got nothing to hide..." line, ask them if they're willing to unlock their phone and hand it to you!

But should a government be allowed to see the messages of a known terrorist? Surely the average person would have nothing to fear if a government had to legally prove a need to access data from certain individuals in front of a panel of judges. Access would be on a case by case basis.

Frankly a competent security service would know how to hack it. And a competent civil service would know how to advise on technology issues. And if it does not it should fucking hire somebody who does. 

It's unhackable - the architecture is such that it's mathematically impossible to guarantee decryption with any current or planned technology in the absence of the encryption key.

 Directly hack what's app's servers then. If that autistic guy managed to hack the US state department it must be possible. What's app is fairly mainstream and can have it's business threatened (privatley of course) without generating headlines. 

Have you read nothing I've posted in this thread? The messages are encrypted at the client. WhatsApp's servers never see the unencrypted content, and they have no means by which to access the encryption key. WhatsApp could quite easily open up all of the data on their servers and all of the traffic in and out (in fact, the authorities already have this traffic), without any fear that law enforcement would be any closer to decrypting it.

This isn't Hollywood.

What about a cloned sim card. It always seems to automatically go from one phone to another when I change phones. That said a darknet version of what´s app, lets call it Jihadi app, would hardly take a genius to set up anyhow. And then you are back to stage one. 

crunchman

When the Torygraph is saying that the government is barking up the wrong tree:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/03/27/whatsapps-encryption-keeps-us-safe-attacking-wrong/

I think it's safe to say that Rudd is absolutely clueless.

Even if they are too stupid to understand the technical issues, even a politician must understand that banning Whatsapp will just lose them votes from some of the millions of people who use it.

digitalscream

Evilmags said:

What about a cloned sim card. It always seems to automatically go from one phone to another when I change phones. That said a darknet version of what´s app, lets call it Jihadi app, would hardly take a genius to set up anyhow. And then you are back to stage one. 

WhatsApp doesn't store anything on the SIM card, and cloning a SIM card doesn't achieve anything when you're talking about non-voice traffic.

Seriously...the stuff you see on TV isn't in any way useful for this. Believe me when I say that when thousands of security experts around the world have failed to crack it, it's unlikely that you (or me, or anybody else on this forum) are going to hit on the solution

crunchman

Presumably they have his phone.

Presumably they also have his thumb if it uses a thumbprint to unlock it.

If it uses some kind of numeric key code then they ought to be able to crack that.

marcus449

gubble said:

I'm not happy about the government having access to my personal whatsapp messages. I have absolutely nothing to hide, but by the same token I don't see why they should be allowed to read everything I say to people on there.

Yes I'm doing nothing wrong but bythe same token you could build up a pretty good picture of my life by reading my messages. Prime example I text my wife every morning when I arrive at work to let her know I'm here safely. 

If someone is looking at you to try and find a link to anything dodgy or illegal they'll find it regardless of it being innocent or not. To anyone reading this if you were questioned by the police about why you were looking for ways to stop the government reading your private messages and they know this because you read this thread what would you say? 

@gubble accessed the fretboard 8 times per day, he read a conversation about how whatsapp encryption is used - how do you explain this? I'm innocent, I know I am but I bet they'd use this sort of thing against me if they wanted to

+1 to this. The worry with data tracking/access to messages, for me, comes with the idea that they use data patterns as assumptions for pre-emptive actions; from literally raiding your house (worst case scenario) to perhaps restricting access to certain non-illegal sites that they deemed to have a negative influence.

FelineGuitars

I don't trust any government , and especially not any of the recent Tory ones.
Access to our personal data, what we look at , what we say on the phone.

Teresa May has two over-riding interests
1) Her puritanical beliefs will frown on anyone even looking at porn 
2) She wants info on everyone's financial dealings to see if more tax could or should be getting taken. If the big multinationals are not being asked to pay their way, someone has to make up the shortfall, and it's going to be the average guys.


Also governments would love access to all our banking arrangements, especially once they can get rid of cash to create a cashless society. At the flick of a switch (via a very complicated algorithm) they can turn off our own access to our own money (fools - it was never really ours) and a slave nation results.

Now I know some of that is a bit Orwellian, and seems far fetched, but I'd hate for any of it to become true.

notanon

Wow this thread is excited. The point @digitalscream makes is important. There is no halfway here, you have secure or not secure. If the gov wants to bake in stiff ideas such as back doors then others can and will use the same. For example
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/23/schneier.google.hacking/

Which means criminals will use it as well as foreign governments. This is IMO the main reason Apple and others will not comply - there is no such thing as secure with a back door.

Now about liberty - 6 degrees of separation: how many people can be linked to Osama bin Laden, Isis or any other terrorist?

Also please tell me what is illegal Mr govern man. Can you now explain that to Mr Turing please.

digitalscream

FelineGuitars said:

I don't trust any government , and especially not any of the recent Tory ones.

Fun fact...it was Labour who started the ball rolling on this.

Also...Thatcher unintentionally did us a massive favour in this regard, by privatising the telecoms infrastructure. Previously, it was run by the Post Office Corporation, which was essentially part of the government. If they hadn't split it out as BT, all of our Internet communications infrastructure would be de facto owned and run by the government, meaning that there wouldn't even be a question as to whether they could spy on us or not.