
WhatsApp and Snapchat could be banned under new surveillance plans - robin_reala
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/whatsapp-and-snapchat-could-be-banned-under-new-surveillance-plans-9973035.html
======
placebo
Why stop there? I suggest making laws that will enforce strict curfews,
limitations on areas of travel and also wearing mandatory unremovable collars
that will enable security forces to immediately neutralise any citizen in case
they turn out to be a terrorist.

I could say something about how this is exactly how terrorism wins, but that's
not really the case. This is just how we lose.

These ideas of sweeping restrictions could be due to the same incompetent
thinking that caused the problem in the first place, or might be a cynical
leveraging of the situation to quench an unending thirst for more control and
power, but whatever the reason, this is the kind of thinking that threatens
the foundations on which free societies are built upon.

~~~
AdeptusAquinas
I was thinking these sort of policies are more representative of how democracy
and security services are constructed: Politicians just want to show they are
doing something, so swipe at an easy target. Security services ask for more
information gathering tools for the same reason corporations try to maximise
their profit: its their job to do so.

It's not going to change until people truly appreciate the trade-off of
freedom vs. security, which probably wont happen until the majority really
feel the pinch of losing the former.

~~~
placebo
You are right, but just that as a society we should stay vigilant in detecting
and stopping companies that make profits using ways that are detrimental to
society, the same should apply to politicians and security forces. There are
checks and balances for that in a modern society, but they can't be
watertight. One can only hope that society will feel the "pinch" (as you
called it) early enough.

~~~
AdeptusAquinas
I guess where my metaphor breaks down is that as you said Corporations are
constrained from doing things detrimental to society (at least in theory), and
the way we constrain them is via law. Security services and politicians are
harder to fix, given they make the laws. The only true influence on their
behaviour is public opinion.

------
fpp
It is appalling what currently is happening in the aftermath of the crazy
Paris attacks.

Some of the biggest offenders of the Freedom of Press are now not battling for
the protection of the press, but for being seen by the media as one of the
mourners in the first row of the Paris events on the weekend (for a better
overview of that see [https://storify.com/tometty/staunch-defenders-of-free-
press-...](https://storify.com/tometty/staunch-defenders-of-free-press-attend-
solidarity))

Most of these providing their " _condolences_ " have been constantly mocked by
CH, have tried to criminalize the work of CH in the past (e.g. German
politicians), and are now shamelessly exploiting media attention and believe
again that there will be no better time to even further crush the rights of
European citizens, some with measures (e.g. further extending telco data
retention, dragnet snooping in the UK & Germany) that latest with the events
in Paris should again been demonstrated as not effective to protect from such
attacks (both measures were already in place and broadly used in France before
the attacks).

We can only hope that Cameron's statement in the article linked is solely a
political one, fishing for voters in the far right & UKIP spectrum. Otherwise
this might be another nail in the coffin of a growing and successful UK
Internet industry.

Some additional info: Noam Chomsky on the aftermath / events in Paris -
[http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/We-Are-All---
Fill-i...](http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/We-Are-All---Fill-in-the-
Blank-20150110-0021.html) Reporters sans Frontieres / Reporters without
Borders: [http://en.rsf.org/rwb-condemns-presence-of-
predators-11-01-2...](http://en.rsf.org/rwb-condemns-presence-of-
predators-11-01-2015,47472.html)

------
virtuabhi
UK is just getting worse for internet freedom each year. The country has
already curtailed free speech with its libel laws [1,2], internet censorship
[3], and newspaper targeting [4].

I wonder if people of UK are like frog in boiling water? Do they not realize
that their rights are being removed with each passing law? I hope at least
tech companies will move out of UK, prompting the UK government to ponder over
its actions.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Chiropractic_Associatio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Chiropractic_Association_v_Singh)

[2] No one can make fun of Her Royal Majesty, and UK prime minister was on the
parade showing solidarity with dead French satirists

[3]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Unit...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom)

[4] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/britain-
targets-g...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/britain-targets-
guardian-newspaper-over-intelligence-leaks-related-to-edward-
snowden/2013/11/29/1ec3d9c0-581e-11e3-bdbf-097ab2a3dc2b_story.html)

~~~
fpp
Friedrich Goltz's boiling frog experiment with the slow temperature increase
to boiling only worked after he removed the brains of the frogs - all others
actually jumped out above 25C+ - when you watch various UK TV shows one can
certainly assume that at least some of the actors / watchers must have had
their brains removed to be able to endure this. I'm not sure if that applies
to the majority of the population (yet) ;-)

~~~
Jimmed
> I'm not sure if that applies to the majority of the population (yet)

Are we living in the same country?

------
tomjen3
>The Prime Minister said today that he would stop the use of methods of
communication that cannot be read by the security services even if they have a
warrant.

So now the British wants to outlaw math.

~~~
dxbydt
maths[1], not math.

[1] [http://www.word-detective.com/2011/05/math-vs-maths/](http://www.word-
detective.com/2011/05/math-vs-maths/)

------
rickjr85
This is ridiculous, in the fact that, even if they ban well known encrypted
chat apps. Terrorist and outlaws could just create their own? I have a phone,
I am a developer, I can do whatever I want with it at that point, outlawing
apps won't stop outlaws from writing illegal apps with encryption.

~~~
AdeptusAquinas
This is what I have never understood. Granted, my partner works in law
enforcement and she says a good portion of criminals are quite dumb (willing
to discuss smuggling plans in a public facebook profile, for example) but its
not like creating a encrypted messaging system has a high barrier of entry.
You could create such using C# Framework libraries in an afternoon! Hell,
contract the work out anonymously on Elance for a $100 or so, and you'll be
immune to the security services by the end of the day.

~~~
DanBC
I'd love to see the cryptographic code that people get from elance for $100.
I'd especiallu like to see a quick audit of that code.

~~~
TillE
You could do pretty well just by ripping off some C# RSA example code. Find a
moderately competent programmer, pay them for 2-5 hours of work...sure, why
not. Just stick to the high-level APIs and you should be fine.

But realistically, nobody will be able to shut down the FOSS tools that
already exist. Use Tor or VPNs if necessary in countries with internet
censorship.

------
fidotron
There appears to be absolutely no proof that such laws would help with their
stated purpose. In the cases of Ottawa, Sydney, and now Paris, the
perpetrators of their respective nonsense were already well known to
authorities, yet this apparently presented no obstacle to them whatsoever.

~~~
jryle70
Are you sure there have been no attempts that were disrupted because the
communication was intercepted? those that haven't been disclosed to the
public?

Also, just because the suspects in the cases you mentioned were well known to
the authority doesn't mean their communication was monitored 24/7\. We simply
don't know.

~~~
lmm
> Are you sure there have been no attempts that were disrupted because the
> communication was intercepted? those that haven't been disclosed to the
> public?

You think politicians would stay quiet about them if there were?

~~~
idlemind
I think they are, foolishly, staying quiet on some recent victories. They've
said as much. It could actually be to their benefit to release more about some
of the cases where they don't reveal more about "methods" than the public
already knows. But they probably won't, because it goes against their culture
of secrecy, they'd rather pretend Snowden never happened.

~~~
undersuit
Their victories are few and far between when you weed out false flag and
entrapment cases, and also look at all the attacks that actually happened at
the same time. With all the press Snowden got, we in the US got no
confirmation of any prevented terrorist attacks even though the media and
security agencies kept alluding to the dozens they prevented in defense of
their spying

------
nickik
This is kind of funny, in a sad way. I mean in the USA the NSA is still saying
that the never, never spy on private information, maybe sometimes, in rare
cases, on non americans.

While in england they are all like, "No more spying in secret, time to
actually take your rights away".

The english are hardcore, the NSA has more freedom in england than in the US.
Sad, but funny.

~~~
Fuxy
I'm not very involved in politics but it looks like I need to go voting to
make sure he doesn't get in.

~~~
remarkEon
[1] is probably the best analysis of the field. Last week on BBC Question
Time, the folks on the panel and in the audience all seemed very hostile to
limits on freedom of speech - though they noted that those rights are much
more robust in the US. Perhaps this is Cameron's attempt to make sure that
UKIP doesn't steal away some Conservative votes. UKIP seems most hostile to
immigrants, from what I can tell. (I don't live in the UK, so perhaps someone
can correct/expand).

[1] [http://may2015.com/](http://may2015.com/)

------
eterm
He said: “In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between
people which […] we cannot read?”

Yes, we do.

It's awful that he can say we don't want something that would be protected in
the US.

------
switch007
I'm so god damn sick of this. An attack happens, and politicians line up with
pre-written, draconian and/or rushed and reactive legislation to further
infringe upon our rights. It's been particularly noticeable since 2001.

I'm so glad HN exists because I sometimes I feel I'm the only one who notices
it.

------
yarper
For anyone reading outside the UK, the chances of him winning the next
election are slim to none at all.

~~~
ubersync
Can you elaborate a little why do you think so?

~~~
yarper
Full disclosure, I am not a conservative voter. YMMV

But a few things will spring to mind,

1) we tend to vote conservative when the books need balancing, and labour when
we feel wealth is not being distributed properly

2) the conservatives always try to "cost save" on the NHS by privatising parts
of it. This virtually always leads to decreased performance. We like the NHS
(a lot).

3) like in most places in the world, we're in a living standards squeeze. They
say they're turning the economy around, but in reality while the books might
say that, the poor and middle class haven't noticed the difference. Tax has
also not been noticeably reduced which is usually a conservative winner.

4) they formed a coalition government with the lib dems (they did not have a
majority). Due to lib dems u-turning on some key points (tuition fees for
example), and most lib dem voters are not pro conservative, they are likely to
lose a lot of seats. So many so that another coalition seems unlikely.

5) nanny state-ism. An election point in the past here accused labour of this
kind of behaviour, but now with their default on porn ban, the snoopers
charter and others, it's starting to wash off.

oh and 6) UKIP. Historically the hard right wanted to exit the EU (and stop
migration), but the conservatives keep dallying around on the subject(s).
They're losing voters and MPs to UKIP who are seen by hard liners as more
likely to deliver.

~~~
evgen
Unfortunately you have a rather poor read on the current electorate over here
right now. While the Tories are not the most popular party around you have to
look at the competition. Labour is a joke and Ed Miliband couldn't get elected
to local council at this point; infighting between SNP and Labour in Scotland
will mean that while the left will still have heavy support in the north it
will not necessarily be to Labour that most MPs owe allegiance. The Lib Dems
are done for the next decade. A cycle being ineffective lap dogs to the Tories
has pretty much crushed their future. UKIP is picking up a lot of what is more
nationalistic than traditional "hard right" and if it comes down to it UKIP
would gladly replace the Lib Dems in the coalition; the Tories would prefer
this not to happen but having UKIP out there is not quite as bad for them as
it seems to most voters, the votes they lose are not going to be supporting a
Labour government when all is said and done.

The end result is that you are likely to see the Tories back in power by the
end of summer, in a somewhat different coalition and with mildly adjusted
policies. Either way, more of the same.

~~~
yarper
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_Un...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election#2015)

~~~
evgen
Exactly. If Labour can't get ahead of the Tories they are doomed and once
people actually start seeing Ed's policies it is mostly downhill IMHO. Right
now Labour has the advantage of being "not the Conservative party", but that
won't get them far. Add up the Tories and UKIP -- if those two together total
50% then nothing else matters and Farage can acquire his pound of flesh if
necessary...

------
idlemind
I can't tell whether this is hubris, technical naïveté or just an attempt to
garner votes. Possibly all three. But let's assume they are proposing a ban on
communications methods that cannot be lawfully intercepted (that's certainly
how Cameron words it).

Firstly, we know it's technically infeasible, secondly it would have a serious
chilling effect on UK Internet companies and the digital economy, and thirdly
it would actually take very popular apps and tools from young voters hands. So
does he really think people will be panicked enough by the threat of terrorism
to vote for it?

~~~
7952
It is a wonderful distraction considering the massive budget cuts in the
police force. The Met are facing 1.4bn budget cuts. The Border Agency had to
cut its budget by 23%. The military are under constant pressure to cut staff
and spend less money. Maybe he gives away civil liberties because it doesn't
cost him anything.

------
rurban
You know that this is one of the oldest constitutional laws. Based on the
french constitution, the 4th amendment in the US, and the Art. 10 Abs. 1
Grundgesetz in Germany, and everywhere else.

And even if the UK has no written constitution, they signed the Human Rights
Act 1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (the
“Convention”) into UK law. Article 8(1) of the Convention provides that
“everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home
and his correspondence.” See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_in_English_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_in_English_law)
for more.

Obama does not care a shit about his constitution anymore, and consequently
his poodle in the UK neither. So they should just waive the Human Rights Act,
and consequently leave the European Union. We pay enough for their cows
anyway, and they are way above their tolerable abuses of civil freedom anyway.

------
api
WhatsApp being banned under these plans would be doubly hilarious, since its
encryption is a joke. There's a single hard-coded AES key for everyone. I'm
sure SnapChat isn't much better.

~~~
xnyhps
The static AES key is for local log storage. This is about encrypted
communications. They are working together with Open WhisperSystems to bring
the e2e-encrypted TextSecure protocol to Whatsapp:
[https://whispersystems.org/blog/whatsapp/](https://whispersystems.org/blog/whatsapp/)

~~~
soperj
I don't know why people wouldn't just use TextSecure instead? Then you
actually know.

~~~
scott_karana
Lack of an iOS app, just maybe?

~~~
nickik
If thats the biggest barrior, im happy.

------
chopin
I am all for Camerons plans. It will put a big red sign on everything: "The
government is snooping on you!". Hopefully they ban SSL as well.

~~~
yarper
Please watch "Black Mirror" on channel 4. If you haven't seen it I think
you'll probably enjoy it.

------
known
Technology cannot solve Social imbalances.

------
Eye_of_Mordor
Stopped reading after _if he wins the next election_

