UK Home Secretary: Apple Gives Terrorists "a place to hide"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Zedcars, Mar 26, 2017.

  1. Zedcars, Mar 26, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2017

    Zedcars macrumors 6502

    Zedcars

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Location:
    Brighton, UK
    #1
    UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd accuses Apple and WhatsApp of giving terrorists 'a place to hide' - (via Mirror Online):
    https://apple.news/AEMOY2ZojSzKfqhGaQbyhUA

    It scares me that she has such a powerful and responsible position in government if she has such a poor grasp of the need for encryption, and why back doors are a bad idea.
     
  2. smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #2
    It's unfortunate that the skills required to obtain a position in government almost universally require the official to be a complete moron with respect to technology, or philosophy.
     
  3. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
  4. CaTOAGU macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #4
    Shortly after she was seen in the cafeteria shouting, "there must be a way for me to both keep this piece of cake for later and eat it now too, it's just unacceptable, there simply must be."
     
  5. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #5
    Another right-wing politician calling for more state surveillance powers? I'm shocked. :rolleyes:

    Oh, and BTW, clearly the last lot of surveillance powers the Tories voted for appear not to protect us. Who would've thought the Snooper's Charter wouldn't actually eliminate terrorism? Again, another shock. :rolleyes:
     
  6. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #6
    Build quantum supercomputers. Let the UK innovate again.
     
  7. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #7
    I want to +1 this, but that involves math, and I don't want to be detained for damaging security.
     
  8. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #8
  9. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #9
    The government can just outsource to offshorers.
     
  10. smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #10
    I'm in "IT" and would take a pay cut if I could actually get into a position where I'm the one making these decisions.

    It's not like there are job postings for this position or others like it, at least in the United States. I looked this morning actually and all the jobs are like social worker or prison guard. There's no IT policy strategist jobs or anything.
     
  11. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #11
    The issue is that they can't hire people on a suitable salary so they outsource. Which is a disaster.
     
  12. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #12
    Some IT services companies usually carry successful projects and involve people in other countries only in special cases.

    Some governments require the work to be performed in the country.
     
  13. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    Certainly it's a disaster in the UK
     
  14. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #14
    Well, at least they are trying to farm out some smaller projects to SMEs.
     
  15. Mildredop macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    #15
    Can someone explain the Whats App end-to-end encryption?

    I get that the message is encrypted and only the phone it is sent to can decrypt it. But how does Phone A know how to encrypt it in such a way that Phone B can decrypt it? I assume Phone B has a key that allows it to decrypt the info from Phone A?

    But how is that initial key exchanged? How come that key can't be intercepted therefore allowing someone to decrypt all future messages sent from A to B?
    --- Post Merged, Mar 26, 2017 ---
    I get your issue. It'd be like the government insisting everyone wears a microphone and records all their conversations just in case two people talk in a private place where no-one can hear them.

    But we are at war. No-one would say it was awful that Bletchley Park cracked the Nazi encryption because it ultimately led to the war being won.

    I don't know what the answer is and I can see it from both sides, but if it was you or a member of your family who was killed or injured last week, I suspect your feelings about terrorists being able to converse in complete and utter secrecy using Whats App would be somewhat different.
     
  16. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    We aren't at war. That's hyperbole.
     
  17. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #17
    And as he said, the encryption had to be cracked, launching the modern computing era.
     
  18. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #18
    The cliche example would be RSA encryption. Think of it this way. I send you a public key that can encrypt a message, but it's useless for decryption, unless you want to go through the process of encrypting a bunch of guesses and checking each against an already encrypted value. Although this can work in some cases, it is either intractable to near intractable with good encryption. You keep a private key. That private key is never exposed to the network. Now when someone sends you messages encoded with your public key, you can decrypt them using your private key. Someone listening in can acquire your public key, so they could encrypt messages and compare. They can't directly decrypt anything.

    Most schemes actually use layers of encryption with garbage data mixed in along the way over some passes.

    Overall, cracking these things often relies on the non-random, non-uniform distribution of the original unencrypted data. Letters in words and words in sentences are definitely not uniformly distributed or random for that matter, and random number generation is also imperfect.

    The nonsense of being in a constant state of war is part of the problem. I sincerely hope that kind of nonsensical sentiment goes away soon. Any kind of exploit can be reduced to an algorithm, at which point the government won't be the only one that eventually uses it. If Apple develops an exploit (this differs from just carrying out a warrant), they under
     
  19. Mildredop macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    #19
    Thanks for the explanation, but I still don't understand.

    Phone A has never physically linked to Phone B, so Phone A needs to somehow explain to Phone B how the encryption works for Phone B to be able to decrypt it.

    If Phone B is able to decrypt the message, how come nothing else along the line could also intercept the initial instruction on how to decrypt future messages?

    What makes Phone B so special? How does Phone A ensure only Phone B has the necessary information to decrypt all future messages?
    --- Post Merged, Mar 27, 2017 ---
    That's your opinion. Mine is that we are at war with those who disagree with our way of life and decide to use murderous means to make their point, rather than going through the channels that already exist.
     
  20. hiddenmarkov macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Location:
    Japan
    #20
    YOU know if she wasn't British this would not be so bad. But. well....MI ? defectors live by the old adage when you go...go big. Why pull a snowden and share what people like me with tin foil hats already knew (all snowden did for me was say cool....I have one less hat to wear now) when you can defect, spill some really good beans and mess up NATO in the process for a bit.

    Also kind of funny as part of op sec you are taught to make your communications as safe as possible. Or many IT areas. A network to be PCI compliant (credit card stuff)...is hard to get off information from. Got lucky and some data...now hard to crack. HIPAA, PII etc....government has stepped in several times say encrypt this stuff...its part of your compliancy rules.

    Since the bad guys know some tricks too. they'd like easier access to data as well.
     
  21. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #21
    You misunderstood the process. I am using RSA encryption as an example, because it's an easy one.

    Phone A doesn't need to do anything to Phone B.

    Phone B sends Phone A a public key. The public key can be used to encrypt messages. Phone B has a second key known as a private key. That key can decrypt any message that has been encrypted with Phone B's public key. Phone B doesn't send the private key to anyone. This means that anyone who observes the public key can send a message to Phone B, but only Phone B has a way to decrypt them. Phone A could do create its own pair of keys to do the same thing, but it doesn't matter as long as no one sees your private key.

    Don't show your privates in public. If you follow that rule, you will be fine.
     
  22. Mildredop macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    #22
    I see - that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.

    So, to be encrypted, the recipient phone needs to first tell the sender how to form the encryption.
     
  23. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #23
    Yes. The recipient knows how to encode or decode a message. The recipient tells the sender how to encode the message but not how to decode it. That's the whole idea. Anyone can send. Only one can decode. If you want 2 way communication, you exchange keys.
     
  24. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #24
    Why would we be scared of terrorists so tiny they can fit in an iPhone? :rolleyes:
     
  25. hiddenmarkov macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Location:
    Japan
    #25
    Did you not watch antman? lol. And he was working for the good guys.
     

Share This Page