'Real People' Don't Need Encrypted Messaging Services, Claims U.K. Home Secretary

[Shirasaki]

Well, based on this analogy:
UK should dismantle GCHQ and hand over all national secrets? Hmm, sounds ridiculous.

Then what about handing over personal information of all politicians? What about posting a tweet showing the full information of their credit card? I know there are guys on Twitter did this before and ended badly.

Politicians are not normal people now, I believe.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

“Real country” doesn’t snoop on it’s people.

That pretty much sums up every western nation to be honest.

As a nation though we are hypocritical about this issue. None of us want to be watched but at the same time slate the intelligence services if they've failed to intercept communications between terrorists prior to attacks. I get the impression sometimes we are happy for persons of interest to be watched as long as they are not monitoring the average joe. It's a very fine line I think.

I don't like the thought of my personal texts and emails being watched despite never sharing anything particularly personal online. It's all very creepy I suppose.

 

[apolloa]

The U.K. home secretary Amber Rudd has argued that "real people" do not want secure end-to-end encryption on messaging platforms and are more concerned with usability and features than unbreakable security (via Yahoo News).

Rudd made her case in a newspaper article, published ahead of a meeting today with technology companies in San Francisco, where she will warn tech giants that their services are being misused by terrorists. Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Rudd said:
Rudd's comments were immediately criticized by privacy campaigners, with civil liberties organization Big Brother Watch calling her viewpoint "at best naïve, at worst dangerous".

"Suggesting that people don't really want security from their online services is frankly insulting," said Renate Samson, chief executive of BBW. "What of those in society who are in dangerous or vulnerable situations, let alone those of us who simply want to protect our communications from breach, hack or cybercrime."

"Once again the government are attempting to undermine the security of all in response to the actions of a few. We are all digital citizens, we all deserve security in the digital space."

Rudd is due to give her speech to tech companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Microsoft, in which she will urge them to do more to remove extremist content online or face new laws forcing them to do so.

Speaking to the BBC, Rudd said she wanted to work more closely with companies on encryption so that "where there is a particular need, where there is a targeted need" the government should be given access to metadata and encrypted content.

But Facebook's chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, pushed back against that argument, and warned about pushing criminals into even harder to reach parts of the internet.

"If people move off those encrypted services to go to encrypted services in countries that won't share the metadata, the government actually has less information, not more," she said.

Tuesday's summit is the first gathering of the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, an organization set up by the major tech companies following recent terror attacks. Organization members are likely to resist any action that would result in compromised encryption, however.

In a joint statement, the companies taking part said they were co-operating to "substantially disrupt terrorists' ability to use the internet in furthering their causes, while also respecting human rights".

Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: 'Real People' Don't Need Encrypted Messaging Services, Claims U.K. Home Secretary

Couldn't agree with her anymore! Well done to her, shame she should be sacked for being an anti democratic Pro EU remain supporter.

 

[DaveTheRave]

Download Signal today!

 

[Jimmy James]

I'm quite ordinary and I care about security and privacy.

It's not about something to hide. It's about something to lose.

 

[apolloa]

I'm not particularly worried what the government can see. I am ****ing terrified of what kind of picture of me an entity like google or Facebook could build up and disseminate around the world.

Well yeah it far far far far too late for that one! Let alone both of them working on AI heavily, Facebook had to turn off two of its AI 'chatbots' because they developed their 'own language to communicate!!'
Yeah, no one is any issues with the idea of an AI monitoring you or talking to you, they are replacing some call centres now even!
Yet the idea that the government wants the power for a court judge, and an MP to authorise access to someone's iPhone or iMessage to stop crime, Jesus stop the flipping world spinning! That's it, big brother is watching... how dare they...

People trust Facebook, a corporation that would sell your soul if it could get it, more then a government which has no where near enough resources or power to sit there and monitor every single internet and mobile communication 24-7...
[doublepost=1501607940][/doublepost]

Well... When torrerist attack happen, you guys would question government ability to gather information and blame on government.

I support government have ability to monitor internet and communication activities so they can prevent next torrerist. The last thing I would worry is state reading all my emails. How likely is that. No government has reseouce reading billions text message everyday. But when government do need read potential torrerist email or text message, then government should have the ability to do so.

Lefties alawys want put things to the extreme. If you want hide something, you are doing something that need to be hide.

Totally agree.

 

[Alenore]

And yet as terrible a justification this is, she's right.
The end-user barely cares about privacy if the product isn't as good. This is why Facebook, google and everything else is as popular : best experience. They all have a product that beats them security-wise.

Blackberry had arguably the best security and privacy of the lot, and we've seen where they are. Because their product was supbar.

 

[MaxinMusicCity]

The U.K. home secretary Amber Rudd has argued that "real people" do not want secure end-to-end encryption on messaging platforms and are more concerned with usability and features than unbreakable security (via Yahoo News).

Rudd made her case in a newspaper article, published ahead of a meeting today with technology companies in San Francisco, where she will warn tech giants that their services are being misused by terrorists. Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Rudd said:
Rudd's comments were immediately criticized by privacy campaigners, with civil liberties organization Big Brother Watch calling her viewpoint "at best naïve, at worst dangerous".

"Suggesting that people don't really want security from their online services is frankly insulting," said Renate Samson, chief executive of BBW. "What of those in society who are in dangerous or vulnerable situations, let alone those of us who simply want to protect our communications from breach, hack or cybercrime."

"Once again the government are attempting to undermine the security of all in response to the actions of a few. We are all digital citizens, we all deserve security in the digital space."

Rudd is due to give her speech to tech companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Microsoft, in which she will urge them to do more to remove extremist content online or face new laws forcing them to do so.

Speaking to the BBC, Rudd said she wanted to work more closely with companies on encryption so that "where there is a particular need, where there is a targeted need" the government should be given access to metadata and encrypted content.

But Facebook's chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, pushed back against that argument, and warned about pushing criminals into even harder to reach parts of the internet.

"If people move off those encrypted services to go to encrypted services in countries that won't share the metadata, the government actually has less information, not more," she said.

Tuesday's summit is the first gathering of the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, an organization set up by the major tech companies following recent terror attacks. Organization members are likely to resist any action that would result in compromised encryption, however.

In a joint statement, the companies taking part said they were co-operating to "substantially disrupt terrorists' ability to use the internet in furthering their causes, while also respecting human rights".

Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: 'Real People' Don't Need Encrypted Messaging Services, Claims U.K. Home Secretary

what is it with commonweath countries, russia and china being obsessed with spying on their own people

That's absolutely right...Hackers need all the help they can get!

 

[Mousse]

I'm a real person and I want encryption. I actively use services that offer end to end secure encryption. She's way out of touch.

You'll be Unperson soon if you keep up that line of thought.

Real people are folks like Winston Smith, Julia, O'Brien, Syme, Parson and Mr. Charrington.

Great Britain is edging ever closer to becoming Air Strip One.

 

[ItWasNotMe]

Article missed the best bit... from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40788180

/Start Article quote
She said companies should give up more metadata about messages being sent via their services. Metadata refers to information about a conversation - such as who took part, when and for how long - but not the contents itself.

When pressed on what kind of metadata she wanted, she replied: “I’m having those conversations in private.”
/End article quote

What irony...

 

[chriscl]

Amber Rudd is quite frankly as thick as mince, and a very sad indictment of the kind of naive, technically inexperienced politician who is in charge of deciding policy for the entire UK.

There are many times I regret leaving the UK. This is not one of them.

 

[jkcerda]

only terrorist have something to hide..........

 

[SoggyCheese]

Christ. Just when you think, Yay!! The US government is actually making our shambolic bunts of idiots look competent they drop this piece of authoritarian rubbish.

May is utterly paranoid. Her Brexit stance is driven by paranoia, her stance on this likewise. What a terrible PM she is.

 

[LovingTeddy]

You're wrong.

As a UK citizen, I understand that the actions of a few idiotic religious nutjobs doesn't mean everyone else should give up their right to privacy. Target the terrorists in other ways, and don't tarnish everyone with the same misguided brush.

Secondly, I want to hide my bank account number from prying eyes, and send it to my Mum so she can transfer me some cash for my birthday. Why should that information be open to anyone (government, hackers, etc.)?

Finally, if we insert backdoors into encrypted messaging services, the terrorists will simply move to services that do not have backdoors (or create their own), and are not covered by any legislation Amber Rudd can dream up. So, the majority lose their right to privacy and nothing is actually gained. How does that help?

Banks by law must disclosed your financial information and transaction to the government. Whether you want encryption or not, government would able to access all your bank accounts and transactions if they wish to see.

If it means to protect general public and national security and outlawing encryption is necessary, then it must be done.

According to your discussion with me on another thread yesterday you are a Chinese citizen currently working in Canada, right? You explained that you have a very different view of your government's wielding of power and control over individuals.

From what I recall of our discussion you have the view that the government wields its power for the benefit of the collective and that this in turn lifts up conditions for the individuals. So you seem to have the view that monitoring and control over individuals is of benefit to all. Whatever protects the interests of the collective also protects the interests of the individual. I hope I interpreted your posts correctly and I apologize in advance if I have it wrong.

If that is what you believe, I can see why, because as you pointed out, your government has indeed effectively modernized your economy in a very fast and efficient manner compared to the progress in other countries. And you seem to be one of the beneficiaries of your nation's rise to prosperity.

However, you fail to see any downsides as far as I can tell. I do have friends who immigrated from China and became US citizens who have a very different opinion from yours. An opinion they weren't free to express in China. Dissent is dangerous to a collective and therefore isn't allowed. If dissenters can't be made to embrace the collective view, bad things happen to them.

I have some pictures I took from materials provided to me by Falun Gong activists at their booth in Washington DC. They have photographic evidence of the brutal persecution they endured because they dared to practice a form of traditional Chinese spirituality that somehow conflicts with official government ideology. I can't post the photos here because the images and details are too graphically violent and gory for this forum. As an American who believes you have a right to your opinion, I pay you due respect for yours but I will choose my individual liberty if that is how your collective treats people who don't fall in perfect line all the time.

Actually we have mini collectives that operate like that here in the West, too, and they often come in the guise of cults. The idea of the collective is very seductive, especially if you're the one who climbs to power and influence within it.

But generally, for our governments, we have a different view in the west, having long histories of fighting for freedom from abusive and oppressive monarchies. Individuals are valued; individualism is seen as a strength. We do unite and work as a whole, too, but we do so in order to give individuals the opportunity to rise on their own strengths and hard work. Individuals are expected to contribute and give back to the community, so it is not all about service to self.

The worry for our western countries right now is that a new type of collective or cultlike thought wants to take control of us. The "cult" seems to have as its basis the raw fear of terrorism. They seem to want to scare and prod citizens into thinking only the government can save us. They seem to want us weak, scared, and willing to cede power over the most minute details of our lives to them...all in the name of fighting terror.

I think they failed to notice that a lot of our most terrifying public attacks were handled with bravery by ordinary citizens and first responders and not special government super agents. And that a lot of our most terrifying public attacks were carried out by demented people who gave plenty of advanced warning and signs on easily available social media posts. Some had already been reported to law enforcement for various mental health issues and nothing was done.
[doublepost=1501599252][/doublepost]
No, it was not Muslims back then. But when I was a little girl I remember countless news items about the IRA.

In my country it's not always Muslims. Sometimes it's crazy high school or college kids. Or someone gone bonkers over a divorce or job situation. Anybody can snap and take out a huge number of people. Are we to permit something like mind reading software to prevent crimes and let the movie premise from "Minority Report" become reality?

I do appreciate your long post. Yeah I do have a view that individual sacrifice for collective good. Because if there is no collective good then there is no individual good. Think about a country that is in political chaos and in fight with civil war. There cannot be individual good. Therefore, collective good is far more important for individual good.

My view is when you have collective good, then you talk about individual good. Therefore, with respecting with government collecting people information and monitoring communication is acceptable. I don't think and I do not believe any government has any capability to read through millions of emails, text messages everyday. It take lots of manpower and resources.

We are happy with big corporations take our information and monitoring our emails, but we aren't happy with government.

I do have understand where in US, there is a point of view that government cannot be trust. I completely understand this point of view.

With regarding to Falungong, we need look at their evidents with doubt. When they have objective to undermine Chinese government, their evidents is automatically not neutral.

 

[Wackery]

"'Real People' don't need privacy"
just take some time to appreciate the amount of doublespeak she uses

 

[mazz0]

That is one of the most idiotic things I have seeing coming from a politician

Oh that's nothing for this lot. They also say Britain would be better off if it pulls out of the world's largest trading bloc without any deal at all to replace it! :'D

 

[techwhiz]

Clueless attempt at data acquisition or a blatant attempt to undermine security of the internet. You pick.

I use a VPN.
I use encryption on sensitive data on my phone.
My computers are all encrypted and require a hardware password to boot.
I don't use social networking like FB, etc.
I have a hardware firewall on my home internet connection.
My home network is completely locked down with MAC address filtering so I know what devices are connected.
I don't share personal data unless I absolutely have to.
I have my own domain, so I can control my email and spam.

I'm not a criminal or terrorist, I just don't trust anyone has my best interest in mind except for me.

 

[vmistery]

Thing is criminals and terrorists won't even use the vulnerable services so it's sacrificing privacy for little benefit. It's not hard to use a vpn or tor, but they wouldn't know this! What's frustrating is they won't sacrifice their own privacy.

 

[576316]

what is it with commonweath countries, russia and china being obsessed with spying on their own people

It's more that our stupid government think that zero encryption = catch all the terrorists. They're not intelligent to realise that there will always be places for terrorists to hide, and to arrange their attacks. If it's not WhatsApp, it's some other app or service. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face, it's nonsensical but they're all too dumb to realise that - or really even understand the technologies they're talking about.

 

[ItWasNotMe]

That is one of the most idiotic things I have seeing coming from a politician, and we have Donald Trump as president here! ...

Being so far away, you probably missed the one where the Leader of the House of Commons recently referred to Jane Austen as one of the UK's greatest living authors.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40677044

Shows the average level of intelligence of the 'Unreal People' that govern us.

 

[tw1ll]

My suggestion is this - flood EVERY comms channel with not-quite-random noise - every one of us. For every legit message you send, which they are eavesdropping on, send 50 "encoded" others to not-quite-random addresses to generate false networks. There will plenty of people out there that could generate data streams that statistically aren't quite random and hence could contain information and hence potentially need attention. We the receivers will easily be able to treat them as spam so of limited inconvenience but for the authorities?

This would overwhelm there ability to harvest en-mass both the social networks and the information we send to each other.

Come on, surely someone has created the app already?

 

[5105973]

Banks by law must disclosed your financial information and transaction to the government. Whether you want encryption or not, government would able to access all your bank accounts and transactions if they wish to see.

If it means to protect general public and national security and outlawing encryption is necessary, then it must be done.



I do appreciate your long post. Yeah I do have a view that individual sacrifice for collective good. Because if there is no collective good then there is no individual good. Think about a country that is in political chaos and in fight with civil war. There cannot be individual good. Therefore, collective good is far more important for individual good.

My view is when you have collective good, then you talk about individual good. Therefore, with respecting with government collecting people information and monitoring communication is acceptable. I don't think and I do not believe any government has any capability to read through millions of emails, text messages everyday. It take lots of manpower and resources.

We are happy with big corporations take our information and monitoring our emails, but we aren't happy with government.

I do have understand where in US, there is a point of view that government cannot be trust. I completely understand this point of view.

With regarding to Falungong, we need look at their evidents with doubt. When they have objective to undermine Chinese government, their evidents is automatically not neutral.

Thanks. I appreciate your honesty and your sharing your point of view with us. It is a very different perspective and very alien to western thought but it's fascinating to contemplate.

We did talk about how Tim Cook/Apple made some huge missteps in marketing Apple products and services to China and I hope now that he is investing in local hires that he will improve products and services for Chinese customers. Because there is really no way for a western raised person to grasp and embrace how different your way of thinking about topics like government and surveillance and security and merchandising is from ours. I can't begin to fathom how a western company could make any headway into your market without native help and insight.

Edited to add: We allow big corporations to collect data in exchange for products and services. We can opt out or not use the product.

That's a huge difference from allowing the government to monitor us. And in your case you don't allow or forbid your government anything. They decide, you comply, period. Here we have to fight tooth and nail against these policies. The problem is, without whistle blowers we don't even know some of the surveillance that is taking place. We have the public elected face of government and we have a hidden military industrial complex that does not answer to us. Because it's all classified and out of sight.

It's very scary when the public elected face of government talks openly about doing this kind of crap. It makes you wonder what the hidden part has been doing all along.

 

[Shirasaki]

My suggestion is this - flood EVERY comms channel with not-quite-random noise - every one of us. For every legit message you send, which they are eavesdropping on, send 50 "encoded" others to not-quite-random addresses to generate false networks. There will plenty of people out there that could generate data streams that statistically aren't quite random and hence could contain information and hence potentially need attention. We the receivers will easily be able to treat them as spam so of limited inconvenience but for the authorities?

This would overwhelm there ability to harvest en-mass both the social networks and the information we send to each other.

Come on, surely someone has created the app already?

IoT is the cure of this scenario: flood the internet with sensor data, or devices generating random data to create huge noise on the data flow. Doing so will surely slow down the overall internet speed but it will also increase the difficulty government tapping into someone’s phone, account etc. .

Actually, this is not a cure, but a way to achieve the goal, and that’s it.

 

[CTHarrryH]

There is a big difference between providing government the ability to decrypt messages with the proper legal authorization or in order to prevent terrorism and not encrypting in the first place. As other stated it allows us to send sensitive information to family or others with a need without worry that the crooks are reading easily. I also don't want Google or Facebook to read my messages so they can sell that information to others.
We need encryption and maybe a need to break it for the proper legal reasons.

 

[macsba]

Rudd is mudd.