UK Online Safety Bill Threatens Security, WhatsApp Chief Warns (ft.com) 32
The head of WhatsApp has warned UK ministers that moves to undermine encryption in a relaunched online safety bill would threaten the security of the government's own communications and embolden authoritarian regimes. From a report: In an interview with the Financial Times, Will Cathcart, who runs the Meta-owned messaging app, insisted that alternative techniques were available to protect children using WhatsApp, without having to abandon the underlying security technology that safeguards its more than 2bn users. The UK's bill, which the government argues will make the internet safer, has become a focus of global debate over whether companies such as Google, Meta and Twitter should be forced to proactively scan and remove harmful content on their networks.
Tech companies claim it is not technically possible for encrypted messaging apps to scan for material such as child pornography without undermining the security of the entire network, which prevents anyone -- including platform operators -- from reading users' messages. Cathcart said the UK's ultimate position on the issue would have a global impact. "If the UK decides that it is OK for a government to get rid of encryption, there are governments all around the world that will do exactly the same thing, where liberal democracy is not as strong, where there are different concerns that really implicate deep-seated human rights," he said, citing Hong Kong as a potential example.
Tech companies claim it is not technically possible for encrypted messaging apps to scan for material such as child pornography without undermining the security of the entire network, which prevents anyone -- including platform operators -- from reading users' messages. Cathcart said the UK's ultimate position on the issue would have a global impact. "If the UK decides that it is OK for a government to get rid of encryption, there are governments all around the world that will do exactly the same thing, where liberal democracy is not as strong, where there are different concerns that really implicate deep-seated human rights," he said, citing Hong Kong as a potential example.
For the children! (Score:5, Informative)
- "But the majority of online users aren't children..."
- "Shut up! For the children!"
Re: (Score:2)
- "But the majority of online users aren't children..."
- "Shut up! For the children!"
I'm no fan of the Tories proposed online "safety" law... but the chief of Whatsapp. Yano, the Whatsapp that outside the EU and UK is vacuuming up user data as fast as they can (and only because GDPR laws prevent them from overtly doing it in the EU and UK).
That would be like Prince Andrew becoming a champion of youth causes.
What Will Their Excuse Be? (Score:2)
Here we go again (Score:2)
Maybe it's helping... (Score:4, Interesting)
Do they know that rape has gone down since the advent of Internet porn?
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Maybe child abuse is similar. Except nobody's allowed to study that. Just searching for information would probably be enough to get me on somebody's list.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if watching child porn reduced the rate of child sexual abuse, there is the issue of consent. All sexual activity should happen only with informed consent, and only between people deemed to have the capacity to give that informed consent. It is necessary that people under the age of 18 are deemed incapable of giving informed consent to take part in sex acts such as porn. Over 18 is a different matter, like drinking alcohol.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
A few years ago I was on a night out after there'd been a paedophilia case in the news. One of my friends, who was studying philosophy at the time, raised a very uncomfortable but interesting question. "What if paedophiles could have access to realistic child sex robots like those 'real dolls' ? They'd get to act out their twisted desires without harming an actual child".
Obviously there was then much debate as to whether this would decrease, or increase, the risk of these theoretical pedophiles carrying
Re: (Score:2)
Even if watching child porn reduced the rate of child sexual abuse, there is the issue of consent. All sexual activity should happen only with informed consent, and only between people deemed to have the capacity to give that informed consent. It is necessary that people under the age of 18 are deemed incapable of giving informed consent to take part in sex acts such as porn. Over 18 is a different matter, like drinking alcohol.
Here (Norway) it is, AFAIK, illegal to portray being a minor. Sex-dolls that resemble a minor, or even drawn or computer generated with no real child what so ever is also illegal. So the law meant to protect children also protects fictitious children.
https://abcnews.go.com/Interna... [go.com]
I believe the jury is still out on whether (fictious) child porn leads to increase or decrease in child abuse. And research is not easy. You might say it's a *puts on sunglasses* touchy subject.
Re:Maybe it's helping... (Score:4, Informative)
Just as a point of order, the age of consent in the UK is 16. However 16 year olds cannot be filmed or photographed in sexually suggestive ways, the minimum age for that is 18.
The law was changed in the 90s IIRC. Before that it was pretty common for newspapers to have photos of topless 16 year olds, with many "Page 3 Girls" starting out at that age. They also used to down countdowns to the model's 16th birthday, with ever more revealing photos each day. Also countdowns to when famous children reached legal age, with paparazzi photos if they could get them.
The age of consent for gay (male-male) sex used to be 21, but is now 18. I don't think there was ever a limit on lesbian sex, and even today the legal definition of rape requires penetration. It could be sexual assault though.
Marriage is 18, except with parental consent when it's 16, and except in Scotland where it's 16 regardless. Scotland, despite being part of the UK, has different laws.
I don't think any of this is based on science. The age of consent was originally to prevent parents forcing their children into prostitution.
Re: (Score:2)
The age of consent for gay (male-male) sex used to be 21, but is now 18.
It was, but was equalized fully to 16, at the turn of the millennium [pinknews.co.uk].
I don't think there was ever a limit on lesbian sex, and even today the legal definition of rape requires penetration. It could be sexual assault though.
You can also "assault by penetration" [legislation.gov.uk] and "causing sexaul activity without consent" [legislation.gov.uk] to the list of not-technically-rape charges. All a bit of a mess, and too focused on penetration, IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, murder rate is down since Internet Explorer lost market share:
https://osu-wams-blogs-uploads... [amazonaws.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not likely. The overwhelming majority of child abusers were themselves abused as children. There are plenty of people studying that. The problem with what you're asking is that it's difficult to study something that is illegal. Not that people aren't allowed to study it, just that it is very difficult to produce any meaningful results. How many people do you know who would voluntarily admit to something that is very much illegal, and not the "I smoked a joint and liked it" kind of illegal.
just buy pegasus (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the water running down the walls and a fountain in the centre of the table.
embolden (Score:2)
embolden authoritarian regimes
These days, seems this is looked at a plus by almost all Countries. God forbid anyone keep personal secrets from Big Brother.
Great idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like alcohol, there should be an age of consent to take part in online social media. Social media for children should be limited, like age categories for films.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bite - how, exactly, are you going to determine that any particular entity is, or is not, 18+? It's not like people can't lie about their name, age, sex, whatever...
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bite - how, exactly, are you going to determine that any particular entity is, or is not, 18+? It's not like people can't lie about their name, age, sex, whatever...
That's for Meta to worry about. They have smart people. I'm sure they can work it out.
Re: Great idea (Score:2)
Magic, got it.
Self-defeating logic (Score:2)
We'll prevent criminals stalking children, by stalking the children, wherever the criminals can't.
Re: (Score:1)
Dear Ministers, (Score:2)
If this goes through, I promise you, every single one of you will have your cellphones, email, Instagram, Meta, Twitter, TikTok, Tinder, Grindr, and Growlr accounts penetrated within seventy-two hours.
Your every exploit, every meeting, every Tweet, message, post, like, swipe, purchase, solicitation and clandestine meeting with male, female, child and animal prostitutes WILL be on the front page of every newspaper, website, message service and more.
It will be swift.
It will be merciless.
Your every moment w
At least one of those arguments is crap (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)