'Real People' Don't Need End-To-End Encryption In Their Messaging Apps, UK Home Secretary Says (bbc.com) 348
UK home secretary Amber Rudd has called on messaging apps like WhatsApp to ditch end-to-end encryption, arguing that it aids terrorists. From a report: The major technology companies must step up their fight against extremism or face new laws, the home secretary has told the BBC. Amber Rudd said technology companies were not doing enough to beat "the enemy" on the internet. Encryption tools used by messaging apps had become a "problem," she added. Ms Rudd is meeting with representatives from Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and others at a counter-terrorism forum in San Francisco. Tuesday's summit is the first gathering of the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, an organisation set up by the major companies in the wake of recent terror attacks. 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." In an op-ed, she wrote Tuesday: Real people often prefer ease of use and a multitude of features to perfect, unbreakable security ... Who uses WhatsApp because it is end-to-end encrypted, rather than because it is an incredibly user-friendly and cheap way of staying in touch with friends and family? Companies are constantly making trade-offs between security and 'usability,' and it is here where our experts believe opportunities may lie.
So selfish (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, indeed. What real people need end to end encryption for financial transactions? It's totally okay to allow unknown parties to breach encryption because, you know, REAL PEOPLE!!!
Re:So selfish (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, totally public financial transactions would be really interesting. I mean, you still need some way of signing them, but you don't need end-to-end encryption per se. There's this bitcoin thing based on that concept.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, totally public financial transactions would be really interesting. I mean, you still need some way of signing them, but you don't need end-to-end encryption per se. There's this bitcoin thing based on that concept.
Yep, and the entire bitcoin network can only handle about seven transactions per second because of this openness.
(this is a network that uses 500 megawatts of electricity).
Re: (Score:3)
Bitcoin can only handle about seven transactions per second because of its decentralized nature. It could handle far more transactions with far less energy and the same ownership if a trusted 3rd party was the sole authority.
Re: (Score:2)
"What real people need end to end encryption for financial transactions?"
The summary said messenging apps. Do you use Whatsapp to for that purpose?
Re:So selfish (Score:5, Interesting)
The summary said messenging apps. Do you use Whatsapp to for that purpose?
Whatsapp is not the world's biggest messaging app. That would be WeChat. WeChat does financial transactions. It was used for about $3 trillion in transactions in 2016.
Re:So selfish (Score:4, Funny)
WeChat is about 90% the size of WhatsApp.
In what way, physical dimensions? Liquid volume? Furlongs per libraries of congress?
Re:So selfish (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It has National Insurance numbers which are similar
Re: So selfish (Score:2)
So they are numbers written in a different notation than base 10 place-value. I mean, XXXIV clearly isn't a number.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This argument is irrelevant. What I, or anyone else want to encrypt from the government is none of their damn business. We shouldn't have to provide justification for having conversations in private.
Re: (Score:3)
And when you get there and discover you need info that's at home you'd rather drive home and back to school than message someone about it?
Re:So selfish (Score:5, Interesting)
Now the key question is: is the Home Secretary a Real Person?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
She comes off as a twit bureaucrat whose knowledge of computers is spoon-fed to her by lower ranking twit bureaucrats
Her argument doesn't even make sense!
If, for example, WhatsApp or iMessage were to remove encryption tomorrow - they wouldn't be any more (or any less) user-friendly than they are today. From a user's point of view, what they need to do to use the app wouldn't change one iota, because the end-to-end encryption is basically frictionless.
Re: So selfish (Score:4, Insightful)
She comes off as a twit bureaucrat whose knowledge of computers is spoon-fed to her by lower ranking twit bureaucrats
Her argument doesn't even make sense!
If, for example, WhatsApp or iMessage were to remove encryption tomorrow - they wouldn't be any more (or any less) user-friendly than they are today. From a user's point of view, what they need to do to use the app wouldn't change one iota, because the end-to-end encryption is basically frictionless.
Her argument makes sense only when you look at the context it is made in. She is the leader of a party which held an election recently, thinking that their main opponent was so utterly useless that the result would be a massively increased majority for them. In this assumption, she and her party were wrong, because the opposition rightly surmised that telling outright lies and promising untold riches stolen from "the rich" via tax, borrowing and printing more money would increase their vote share by persuading the younger and stupider voters to vote for them.
This technique worked.
Mrs May is now working with a greatly reduced majority, and cannot steamroller through unpopular or just plain wrong-headed legislation at will.
This is why we are seeing this transparent pleading and attempts at persuasion; any attempt to impose legislation against companies who will in the main simply ignore her and her stupid laws is going to fail. Britain is also in the process of leaving the European Union, and once it has done so will drop down to "nowhere very much" in terms of economic clout when it comes to negotiating with technology giants.
So, mindless drivel from now on will be the order of the day, and indeed has always been so with politicians and encryption. Ever since the written source code to Phil Zimmermann's PGP was smuggled out of the US, the public has had access to strong end to end encryption, and the laws of physics and mathematics thus trump the laws that can be dreamed up by politicians.
Re: So selfish (Score:3, Insightful)
"printing more money"
Print £500 billion for the banks? No problem, we'll call it Quantitative Easing.
Print £500 billion for the government? Economic madness.
Re: (Score:3)
As a Brit I endorse this analysis completely. The gubermint in the UK are doing increasingly shouty announcements about various draconian policies that are unworkable and impossible to implement given their non-existent majority in the votes that would be needed to achieve them. These announcements are virtue signaling to the red-neck portion of the population whom they believe are too stupid to understand the policies but whom they will be relying on at the next election. I imagine that they will be announ
Re: So selfish (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's just the usual politics of blame.
Labour capitalized on people noticing that austerity had been a lie - it wasn't all of us in it together, it was most of us getting fucked over and the rich staying nice and rich. The people who caused the banking crisis certainly didn't suffer like the rest of us did.
Now the Tories are back to their usual tactic of blaming people of their own ineffective and half baked policies. I'm sure they could stop terrorism if only Whats App would disable encryption. Yeah, that's the problem.
the biggest terrorists (Score:4, Insightful)
Like the USA, the biggest terrorist organization in the UK is the government
Re: the biggest terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly, she's a she. Secondly, it's not her chosen profession - she was allotted that cabinet role, and could easily be doing education or transport in the next reshuffle. Thirdly, if she thinks banning encryption does anything to stop criminals who, by definition, do things illegally, I'd suggest she's awful at her job.
Re: (Score:3)
Firstly, she's a she. Secondly, it's not her chosen profession - she was allotted that cabinet role, and could easily be doing education or transport in the next reshuffle. Thirdly, if she thinks banning encryption does anything to stop criminals who, by definition, do things illegally, I'd suggest she's awful at her job.
I agree that she, like so many of Tories, is strangely unsuited for her job - it goes with the class: they feel they are entitled to rule, and they have the sort of skillset that goes with hobnobbing amongst their peer group of upper class people, but are poorly equipped when it comes to understanding the practicalities of the life of normal, skilled workers, who depend for their income on being able to do real work. And she clearly hasn't got much of a clue about IT, the internet, encryption or anything li
Re:the biggest terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
but there's no reason to assume that he's not acting in good faith
Of course there is: the loaded language she uses precludes good faith. The choice of words is designed to make it sound as if there is something wrong with you if you want encryption, and if you want it then you're not the sort of person the government wants to protect.
That's pretty much textbook bad faith.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He's not acting in good faith. Otherwise he would know that backdoors can and commonly are repurposed by criminal actors and enemies of the state. The more people have access to a key, the more likely it will leak. Look at the TSA lock backdoors in physical security - people already have 3D printable keys to unlock TSA backdoored physical locks. Any government-access key in any existing security system will be similarly leaked and reused for nefarious purposes.
What happens if ISIS finds your backdoors?
Re: (Score:3)
citation needed
Re: the biggest terrorists (Score:3, Funny)
Alternative facts are fun huh?
Re: the biggest terrorists (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
While the left wing does have a pretty strong monopoly on university protest, actual terrorism is predominately the domain of the right wing in America, and has been so since the 1990s. Back in the 70s, things were different, but we haven't really had that many violent radical left movements or attacks in America for several decades now.
http://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/... [npr.org]
Re:the biggest terrorists (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems that all you see on the news pretty much these days, are the LEFTist types rioting and using or threatening violence, especially if the target is promoting something even mildly conservative.
If nothing, else...look at the explosion of riots for days after the last election all over the US by the left.
You didn't see any of that when Obama was elected....either time.
The right wasn't happy, but they didn't lose their fucking minds and march the streets with vandalism and having celebrities actually mention bombing the white house (Madonna) or otherwise making some pretty serious and outlandish threats.
You haven't seen this type of behavior on the conservative side in well.....forever.
Even the Tea Party events at their largest, were largely peaceful....yet, the media painted them as foaming at the mouth nazi's of the next coming.
Re: the biggest terrorists (Score:3)
Re:the biggest terrorists (Score:4, Insightful)
In my opinion, people should be free to practice the religion of their choice so long as their religious views do not necessitate changes in behavior of others.
Example: "I believe the soul enters the body at conception, and thus consider abortion to be unethical and I will not perform one or have one performed on me."
That's fine. You're stating your view on a religious issue and how it dictates your behavior. You are welcome to opt out of having an abortion or going into careers where you provide them, because you have your religious freedom.
Example #2: "I believe the soul enters the body at conception, therefore abortion is murder and should be banned."
This is problematic, because you're taking your view - the soul enters the body at conception - and using it to change the law to have other people adhere to your beliefs. What if they hold a religious belief that the soul only enters the body after a hundred and forty four days? Abortion would thus be an ethical choice to someone with that belief until roughly halfway through the second trimester.
In the same way, I believe that people have the right to hold their own religious views - including conservative muslim ones - so long as those views do not require other people to adjust their public behavior for them. I don't care if you or your female associates wear a head covering, but I do care if you try to make my female friends wear them.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow homophobic insults. How progressive.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah...and when's the last time you ever heard of any of those groups on the news engaging in any actions that were remotely newsworthy???
Those are largely entities of the past....and what's left is pretty quiet and unremarkable at least if you are looking for any public actions.
I'm glad they are pretty much something of the past, but if you're gonna use examples of something on the "right"
Re: the biggest terrorists (Score:3)
Crap politics (Score:5, Insightful)
I am real people... (Score:5, Insightful)
And I need end to end encryption, for things like my banking info, purchases on the net, and my sexting with age adequate MILFs (I am 43).
And more so, I also WANT end to end encryption on all my comms.
'Nuff said
Re:I am real people... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I'm revising my resume to indicate that I'm a fake person, so there's that. It's going to make me stand out from the crowd, that's for sure.
MOD THIS UP (Score:2)
Great idea for a CV!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
For the future AI reading this in 100 years, it's important to note that the initialism MILF has two distinct meanings because the letters IL can mean either "I like" or "I'd like." The difference is that in the latter case, "I'd" means "I would," which means the "F" action has not taken place yet.
The latter interpretation will explain why you haven't found a DNA match for williamyf in the global database. :)
Re: (Score:3)
If only you did not wrote as Anonymous Coward, Your comment would have been even funnier.
Having said that, with plenty of MILF (and Non-MILF in my younger years) action, 7 major surgeries, 2 dental pieces extracted, 1 blood donation, and 2 sperm analysis during my life, IF there is no match in the Global DNA Database, is because of the authorities negligence to collect the samples.
But, sadly, no known offspring so far... :'(
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. As I sit here reading through the last day's worth of RSS headlines from Slashdot, I see things like It Is Easy To Expose Users' Secret Web Habits, Say Researchers [slashdot.org], Hackers Break Into HBO's Networks, May Have Leaked 'Game of Thrones' Script [slashdot.org], and US Senators To Introduce Bill To Secure 'Internet of Things' [slashdot.org], I'm dumbstruck by the incongruity. Here's a person saying "real people" don't need encryption, but then here are three headlines (with summaries and articles I've admittedly not yet read) detailin
Re:I am real people... (Score:5, Insightful)
And more so, I also WANT end to end encryption on all my comms.
This is the point. All the people justifying encryption for their banking data, sexting data, etc. are barking up the wrong tree. We don't NEED to justify our communications to the government, I'll communicate any way I choose. Fuck the authoritarian assholes that think they can tell me what I can and can't do - I haven't done anything wrong and refuse to be treated like a vassal of the state. I am a free man and will do what I please and will work and vote against anyone who thinks it should be otherwise.
Many people (Score:2, Interesting)
Here in Australia my housemate has lots of friends in the federal and local police. She uses it because she knows otherwise they could just read her messages (even though they aren't meant to). She even had some guy from another government department tell her he could just look her up on the directory if they wanted to
Lots of people need it. It's all good and well when you're above the law but everyone else deserves privacy. It wouldn't surprise me if there have been lots of stalking cases which were caused
So, Why Don't you Publish your IMs and Email? (Score:5, Insightful)
Put your money where your mouth is, Mr. High and Mighty.
Publish your DOB, National ID #, Bank Account Info and Home address.
Oh, yes, and publish your entire IM and TXT History, Facebook, Twitter etc. Logins while you're at it.
Because that's what you are suggesting all your Subjects do...
Re: (Score:2)
I thought subject lines were metadata, and could therefore be gathered without a warrant.
Re: (Score:3)
Because that's what you are suggesting all your Subjects do...
She's not the queen, you know: not every female in a senior position in the UK is isomorphic to the queen.
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's what you are suggesting all your Subjects do...
She's not the queen, you know: not every female in a senior position in the UK is isomorphic to the queen.
I knew that; but I am not familiar enough with British terminology to figure out what to call them. "Citizens" is not correct though, right?
Re: (Score:2)
You have no idea how ridiculous that comment is in the context of a very *very* right-wing home secretary.
Tell that to... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell that to former opposition politicians in Turkey and Venezuela ...
Do you really think something similar couldn't happen in the UK? In twenty years? In forty years?
You may not be around then, but the laws that are made now will.
I live in Venezuela - MOD PARENT UP!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Caps Intended
Re: (Score:3)
Remember Ireland (Score:4, Insightful)
That was part of the UK and descended into total chaos over the independence issue. Just because we've avoided issues for centuries doesn't mean that it couldn't all go horribly wrong; if Corbyn is win an election - especially if there was significant hints of electoral abuses.
And remember 'A Very British Coup' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Tell that to... (Score:4, Interesting)
Wrong 1832, and the civil unrest leading up to the passing of the Great Reform Act. The final clincher was when the general public withdrew money to the tune of 25% of the gold the bank hand on deposit at the time.
Sure, But he's "real people" too (Score:4, Funny)
Encrypt it all. (Score:2)
Once there was a town where all the houses were made of glass.
Then someone invented paint so people didn't see each other naked.
Then the police said we need to get rid of all this paint because seeing everyone naked is a great way to reduce crime.
To wit the only real question was. Is it worth it?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't even like seeing them clothed, forget about nekkid!
I don't give a shit what he thinks I need (Score:3, Funny)
I want high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I wanna run through the streets naked with green Jell-O all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal?
Math. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
For using "math" in singular form. Quite right.
Re: (Score:3)
"Maths" is an error based on misunderstanding that fact.
Nonsense, maths is a shortening of mathematics. It's perfectly valid to pick some letters from the start and the end when shortening a word. Saying it's based on pluralizing math is just completely bogus etymology.
http://grammarist.com/spelling... [grammarist.com]
Get Real. (Score:2)
Real Government doesn't need to spy on it's citizens.
If the UK wants to reduce Terrorism (Score:3, Interesting)
They need to stop permitting Saudi inspired Colonialism in London.
I draw a stark difference between Shia, Amadi, Sikh, Hindu, and other refugees who come to Britain in the interest of co-existing in a Pluralistic society in the UK, they should be welcome, they should be met with understanding, and tolerance.
Then there is the attempt by the Saudis to create a puppet State in a section of London. The Sunni Wahabis are creating several such puppet states all over Europe. Its colonialism, and it needs to be stopped. They need to stop the flow of Saudi money, pro-Saudi propaganda, shut down and dismantle Sharia courts, prosecute cases of FGM, and arrest radical gangs.
The Saudis foment racism just as bad as any white Supremacists do in the US. While it has been a largely internal matter for the Saudis, there are Saudis promoting a return of Black African slavery, and female sex slavery. They are actively commiting a Genocide against the Shia Houthis in Yemen. They nearly massacred the Yazitis.
Look, the truth is the war on Terrorism is really the war against Saudi inspired Sunni Wahabi aggression. The Saudis started it, and it won't end until the Saudi regime falls. If we ever want to live in peace and security again, the Saudis have to be stopped.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
My pet analogy: I don't have anything to hide, but damned if I want a camera in my bathroom.
Um.... (Score:2)
If Ms. Rudd thinks end-to-end encryption isn't helping to fight the enemy, I think she's confused about who the enemy is.
She'll need a mirror to find out who.
After all, we all know... (Score:2)
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
Re:After all, we all know... (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if that position were true, it is irrelevant... since everyone, and I mean *EVERYONE*, including Ms Rudd, has something to hide.
But having something to hide does not mean that there is anything wrong, it can be simply because they simply want something to be private.
I mean, most people wear clothes when they are socializing with others. Is there something wrong with people's bodies that they need to keep them covered up? (There very well be for some, but this is beside the point). I am, of course, being rhetorical... people generally keep their privates covered up when they are in public because they are just that: private.
So to suggest that real people don't need end-to-end encryption is saying that real people don't really need any privacy. I'd like to see what she'd have to say if she were made aware that by extension, she should be required to never wear any clothes anymore.... unless she contends that she herself is not a real person.
Re: (Score:3)
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
Or close the door in your bathroom when you go to do your business. After all these years, these nitwits have yet to grasp the concept of privacy.
I guess I'm not real? (Score:2)
To be honest, I've always suspected that I was fictional.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I've convinced myself that this is all in a cordrazine hallucination. But I've decided you're not. [imdb.com]
Ah, the "No True Scotsman" position. (Score:2)
link [logicalfallacies.info]
Ms. Rudd should be called out quite clearly for employing such blatant logical fallacy.
Losing a grip (Score:3)
Real governments (Score:2)
I've never used it but... (Score:2)
Real people do not become politicians either (Score:2)
Because they are neither stupid nor dishonest enough for that.
Now, a recent trend seems to be that real people have stopped to recognize how stupid and dishonest politicians are, and that one is worrying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, flukes do happen.
I mean technically no, but then there's predatory (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Another stupid and ignorant politician (Score:2)
Could someone please dump his private emails ... (Score:2)
... on to wikileaks or something? Preferably including subscription confirmations to porn-sites and such? Thanks. ... Jesus H.B. Crickey, how I hate these idiots.
Dear idiot (Score:4, Insightful)
Getting a terrorist isn't achieved by decrypting everybody's private messages and making fraud, identity theft, extortion and the likes waaaaay easier than it is now.
If you want to get Mr. Terrorist, you've got to do the old stile intelligence work. Which means actual hard labor; Which costs money. Yesyes, you don't want to spend money and think that listening in on everybody will net you Mr. Terrorist. I'll tell you something simple:
Mr. Terrorist is trying everything in his power to remain undetected, so he won't conveniently sms that he will plant a bomb at busy place X, so you can find him.
Trying to kill encryption for the masses, will not keep it out of the hands of Mr. Terrorist. Mr. Terrorist already has moved beyond whatsapp. Sneakernet still exists today, you know... and in order to intercept communication via sneakernet, you need intelligence the old way: hard work.
But, because privacy got killed, you now have endless options for man-in-the-middle attacks by all kinds of evil-doers. But hey! You "conveniently" forget about that. You "conveniently" forget about the possibilities for fraud, identity theft, harassment and other crimes this would open.
Dear idiot. Measures like these will only affect those you are trying to "protect." In reality it's just another oppression tool, isn't it?
'real' governments (Score:5, Insightful)
'Real' governments do not need to hide their operations and finances from their citizens
Real governments don't need to snoop on everyone (Score:2)
Two can play the name calling game. Man up and learn to govern and police and quit trying to take the easy way out, politicians.
Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
"substantially disrupt terrorists' ability to use the internet in furthering their causes, while also respecting human rights."
Last time I checked, privacy is a human right. This is true in the US, and it is equally true in the UK (until Brexit is completed, at the very least).
If the right to privacy cannot cover something as basic as free speech, what good is it?
ThughtCrime (Score:2)
>Who uses WhatsApp because it is end-to-end encrypted, rather than because it is an incredibly user-friendly and cheap way of staying in touch with friends and family?
I do! Some of my friends and family are in countries without the freedom of speech protections of the United States and the United Kingdom. ThoughtCrime can get you in a lot of trouble in large parts of the world.
My point exactly... (Score:5, Interesting)
When someone, somewhere, anywhere even, says that I don't need end-to-end encryption I take it as a sure sign that I desperately, immediately need end-to-end encryption on everything.
If they weren't deeply invested in being able to see everything I send to anyone they wouldn't even care about making such an announcement. That they are saying this means they are being frustrated by the idea of private communication. Good. Fuck them.
You want the details of my communication? Fine, start up a conversation with me and whatever I send you is yours to do with as you wish. Or check what I post online under my real name. Any other viewing of my private communications is a violation of my privacy you authoritarian shit bag, and requires a warrant and a damn good reason.
Since users won't care (Score:3)
Can I get VC funding to create a Whatsapp clone that simply forwards ALL messages from person A to person B to the NSA branches off all government (USA, UK, France, Russia, China, North and South Korea, Iraq, Iran, all 198 or so of them). I should be able to raise simple VC to fund the project - and since users don't care grab a 50 percent market share (because they don't care it is flip a coin on if it is me or it is Whatsapp). Since this is an advertised feature vs Whatsapp's advertised feature of end to end security - we can judge how important this feature is to end users.
VC please send your offer sheets to me here, I am willing to give away 25% non-voting shares in exchange for 10% of the valuation of Whatsapp/WeChat/something similar
Re: (Score:2)
interesting logic, if you believe in 1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Snowden correctly stated: You only have nothing to hide, if you have nothing to say.. Another famous quote by Benjamin Franklin: "Those who give up their civil liberties for a little extra safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Let the politicians lead for once (Score:2)
2 weeks of this and these bankrupt assholes might find the clue pile.
Real People (Score:2)
Real people often prefer ease of use and a multitude of features to perfect, unbreakable security ... Who uses WhatsApp because it is end-to-end encrypted, rather than because it is an incredibly user-friendly and cheap way of staying in touch with friends and family? Companies are constantly making trade-offs between security and 'usability,' and it is here where our experts believe opportunities may lie.
This statement is so full of darkness it makes me sick. Inferring that certain people on this planet, whom biologically are definitely people, but they're not people. This is a total error and very disturbing to classify -any- group of people as 'not real.' Or less than people. Regardless of justifications, this is just disturbing.
As much as I dislike invoking Godwin's law, but this just smacks of something you'd hear a NAZI say. Disgusting.
Encryption isn't even a word I saw or gave any thought to. Th
We are not just real people (Score:2)
We are more complex than that.
Attorney-Client Privelege (Score:2)
If I were involved in a lawsuit (civil, not criminal) and wanted to send relevant documentation to my attorney, I would definitely want end-to-end encryption. After all, there have been real instances of attorneys and their private investigators engaging in illegal practices in attempts to gain sensitive data about their opponents.
For other reasons why end-to-end encryption might be important to non-terrorists, see my http://www.rossde.com/PGP/pgp_... [rossde.com].
Re:Nothing to Hide (Score:5, Insightful)
You're talking about a country where a slim majority voted to cut off the metaphorical branch they were standing on because some con-artists sold them the illusion that they somehow get control (oh, and apparently vast amounts of money for the NHS).
ahh, not this crap, again. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are. Are you not on the side of truth and justice?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I find it amusing that no one has noticed in the article, that Ms. Rudd herself says that the government wants this for operations that are not technically legal.
From the article itself, not far under the video.
"It's a problem for the security services and for police who are not, under the normal way, under properly warranted paths, able to access that information."
This quote only shows those who follow the logic of "Well what do you have to hide?" that the government is not acting in the best legal interests of its citizens.
Your reading of the article is incorrect. I have separated the 'complicated bit' into bold and italic clauses to clarify which bits go together. Essentially what she's complaining about is that even if they have a legally obtained warrant the people tasked with catching the bad guys are still unable to read those bad guys' communications.
For all the fact I disagree with what she's proposing, and her arguments 'supporting' her proposals, this is a valid concern.
It's just a shame there's no easy solution to t