
The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp - panarky
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/next-front-new-crypto-wars-whatsapp
======
jessegreathouse
If the government wins any of these court battles, it's only a matter of time
until one-way encryption is outlawed. It follows logically that if
criminals/terrorists can't use iPhones to securely communicate, then they'll
just move on to the next convenient encryption app. The government will
continue to order companies to break their one-way encryption until the
government realizes they're playing musical chairs and then they'll issue an
executive order to ban one-way encryption outright. The precedent allowing
them to do so, will be all of these initial court battles vs Apple, whatsapp,
and whoever else gets defeated. In the wake of these events regular people,
like you and me, will be harmed by hackers and commercial companies exploiting
this new world without one-way encryption.

~~~
yazaddaruvala
Anyone have any insights into why the commonly used guns argument is not good
enough for encryption? If we ban guns(encryption), only the criminals will
have it.

The only thing I can think of is that the majority of people who advocate for
encryption are anti-gun, and don't want to give strength to that argument?

~~~
danieltillett
I have never understood why the USA anti-gun lobby doesn't go after ammunition
rather than guns. Just ban ammunition and a gun just becomes a not so
dangerous club.

~~~
15155
Ah yes, "Let's use semantics to infringe on unalienable rights, that'll show
those Framers!"

~~~
danieltillett
Well unless the anti-gun lobby can change the constitution they need to find
some way around it. I was not suggesting that this should be done, just asking
why not?

~~~
krapp
The right to "keep and bear arms" pretty clearly implies the right to use arms
(guns) in the way they were intended to be used, which means access to the
ammunition as well. No one in their right mind believes the Second Amendment
was written with the idea that militiamen would use their guns primarily as
clubs.

It's not done partly because the "anti-gun lobby" knows it would be a
fruitless endeavor, and partly because most gun control advocates don't
actually want to render guns useless by any means possible.

~~~
danieltillett
I was under the impression that certain types of ammunition are able to be
banned without any constitutional issues arising [1].

If you wanted to be really clever you could still allow ammunition, but limit
the materials the bullet could be made from or limit the powder load.
Attacking ammunition has got to be a more workable strategy than trying to
restrict gun ownership without consitutional change.

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon-
coated_bullet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon-coated_bullet)

~~~
krapp
Sure, but I think a strategy like that only avoids constitutional issues
because it's not a general attack on the efficacy of firearms. Anything that
has the effect of making guns less effective en masse would probably run afoul
of the Second Amendment.

~~~
danieltillett
Banning armor-piecing bullets certainly makes firearms much less effective -
after all this is why the law was brought in as it made guns too effective
against the authorities (the infamous “cop killer bullets”). Why has this law
[1] not fallen afoul of the second amendment?

1\.
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921#a_17](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921#a_17)

~~~
krapp
Because all of the other kinds of bullets still kill people perfectly well,
thank you, and that's all the Second Amendment requires.

~~~
danieltillett
Not if the bullets come out of the barrel at less than 10 feet per second.
Just make a law limiting the bullet’s velocity to below the skin piercing
speed. You have your arms, but you can't do much with it beyond killing flies.

~~~
krapp
Admittedly, I'm not a constitutional scholar, but the Second Amendment was
written at a time when the fledgling country wanted to ensure a distributed
defense against potential threats like Spain and England, and Native American
tribes. My naive reading of it leads me to believe that the part where the
bullets can kill people is kind of non-negotiable.

~~~
danieltillett
My understanding is the second amendment has been “interpreted” quite a bit
over the years - after all the original intent of the law was that people
could own arms (i.e. military grade weapons), not just handguns and the like.

~~~
cgriswald
I interpret the first amendment to mean we have a right to make sounds come
out of our mouths. The content of those sounds, however, is not protected.
Since there are an infinite number of combinations of sounds, banning
political statements does not impact that right. You are still free to make
infinite sounds. The amendment also does not cover the right to record that
sound or to write thoughts down on paper. And while the amendment does
preserve the right to petition the government for grievances, it does not
specify what form that petition must take or for the government to act on such
grievances. Therefore, a law which requires all such grievances to be voiced
at lowest point of the Atlantic Ocean is constitutional as well.

~~~
niij
Thank you for this. This guy is either a supporter of Nanny States or has a
massive lack of understanding of basic U.S. constitutional law.

~~~
danieltillett
Or maybe he is asking a question.

~~~
niij
>Not if the bullets come out of the barrel at less than 10 feet per second.
Just make a law limiting the bullet’s velocity to below the skin piercing
speed. You have your arms, but you can't do much with it beyond killing flies.

Not much of a question. Although this is clearly hyperbole, I think the
implication that our rights be "nerfed" through loopholes is unconstitutional.

------
fweespee_ch
[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/us/politics/whatsapp-
encry...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/us/politics/whatsapp-encryption-
said-to-stymie-wiretap-order.html?_r=0)

> The Justice Department and WhatsApp declined to comment. The government
> officials and others who discussed the dispute did so on condition of
> anonymity because the wiretap order and all the information associated with
> it were under seal. The nature of the case was not clear, except that
> officials said it was not a terrorism investigation. The location of the
> investigation was also unclear.

Just in case anyone was wondering if this was terrorism related, it is not. I
suppose next is OpenWhisperSystems / Signal, etc.

I'm glad I've stuck with GnuPG for anything truly sensitive.

~~~
ycmbntrthrwaway
GnuPG is great, but it is not for real-time messaging. Real-time messaging
protocol should have forward secrecy, which OpenPGP can't have because it is
not an interactive protocol.

Related: [http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/gpg-and-
me/](http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/gpg-and-me/)

~~~
fweespee_ch
I'm aware but I don't need real time messaging for secure communication. It is
really limited to things like security flaws, financial information, and
things of that nature.

------
axihack
Can anyone point me to where WhatsApp app is actually confirming they are
implementing E2E encryption and how?

I couldn't find anything on the oficial web/blog, the single mention on
security is this FAQ[1] which is about server/device encryption.

A friend also told me E2E is only available for US users but unfortunatelly I
can't confirm this because of the lack of communication from WhatsApp.

[1]
[https://www.whatsapp.com/faq/en/general/21864047](https://www.whatsapp.com/faq/en/general/21864047)

Edit: fixed typos

~~~
ibejoeb
I've never seen any official confirmation, but Wired reported that it had been
enabled between Android devices: [http://www.wired.com/2014/11/whatsapp-
encrypted-messaging/](http://www.wired.com/2014/11/whatsapp-encrypted-
messaging/). The implementations is reportedly based on TextSecure/Signal.
Moxie says WhatsApp "is implementing" which is certainly distinct from "has
implemented."

~~~
axihack
Agree, "is implementing" could last forever or have a very limited scope by
design. I think I am going to assume there is no E2E encryption until a proper
confirmation from WhatsApp.

~~~
ibejoeb
Yeah, that and it's almost irrelevant since it's only Android-to-Android.

~~~
Oletros
Why is almost irrelevant?

~~~
ibejoeb
WhatsApp does not give an indication of what software the remote party runs,
as far as I know. You'd have to trust the third party in order to rely on the
encryption.

~~~
nickik
Nothing you say makes it even close to 'irelevant'. Even badly thought out end
to end encryption message app is importend when rolled out to 300 million
people.

~~~
somesay
No. Actually, I would say fake encryption is even dangerous. WhatsApp might
not always run end-to-end encryption for compatibility issues, there isn't
even a visual indication for encrypted connections, there is no way to verify
keys (if at all, they are verified by WhatsApp servers), so leaving a lot of
room for all kind of man-in-the-middle attacks. The encryption itself isn't
documented, and at the same time WhatsApp had added an option for (likely
insecure) cloud backups. Yes, WhatsApp does fake security. But people believe
it's secure. Now more than ever.

But those cases are only saying that companies can't comply to disclosure
requests. That doesn't say if the encryption itself is weak or if the user has
to completely trust that company. Just like the Apple case, where a 4-6 digit
PIN is basically protected by Apple's secret firmware and its signing
infrastructure.

There is nothing worse than a messenger that is commonly called secure but
actually isn't (like the current implementation at WhatsApp). Cryptocat
already had a massive disaster related to this problematic. Known as the chat
program for activists in danger, it had a mathematical bug that made it nearly
as weak as cleartext. Another one: As long as people aren't always explicitly
using Secure Chats, Telegram isn't more secure than WhatsApp and doesn't use
any end-to-end encryption. Still hyped for its security. While secure clients
can definitely exist, most of the famous everyday solutions are just FUD and
bullshit.

~~~
nickik
I have never said that WhatsApp is secure. You seem to have completly missed
the point. For people that are above avg in their security need should of
course investigate and find the best tool for the job. That has always been
true.

Listen to what Im saying. End to end encryption, however badly imemented,
rolled out to 300 million people is a extremly big deal.

Just for the fact that it counteracts the belief that only suspect people use
encryption. Also even badly implemented end to end encryption stops lazy
dragnet survailance. The policy or the FBI simple do not have the ability to
MITM billions of messages every day.

Remember that most texting was essentially done in cleartext before this.

------
rsync
All computer code can be rephrased in common written (english, perhaps)
language. I'm not talking about pseudocode, I mean an actual translation layer
from, say, C to english phrasing that specifically describes the computer code
to be written.

And at that point it's just speech. I don't mean "like speech", or "something
sophisticated people should recognize as speech", or "code is speech" ... I
mean, it's just plain old speech. Just very boring, long-winded (and extremely
precise) descriptions of computer source code.

So perhaps there will be some pain and perhaps there will be some years before
it finally gets to the supreme court, but in the end, it's just speech.

Will they change the 1A ? Would they ?

~~~
sesutton
The source code for PGP 5 was made legally available outside the US in a
similar method though without translating it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_investigation)

------
trulyWasteful
No one can stop me and my peers from sending meaningless garbage data to each
other.

So, if it simply _looks_ encrypted, but acctually contains randomized
meaningless shit, how can anyone prevent me from bahaving in this manner, and
claim that I've done harm?

I've paid for the service, and I can spam it with trash as I see fit.

~~~
beeboop
This is unfortunately not true in many places. In the UK you can be thrown in
prison for failing to decrypt any data in your possession. This means someone
can encrypt garbage on a USB drive and slip it in your pocket and make you rot
in prison for years.

In the US, you will be held in contempt for failing to decrypt data when
ordered if they can show that you "probably" have access to it and it's
relevant to the charges against you. This also means prison for many years for
failure to decrypt, even if you can't.

~~~
hifier
Not until they change the 5th amendment.

~~~
0xcde4c3db
I don't know what the accepted jurisprudence is on this, but there are
interpretations of the 5th amendment saying that the protection only extends
to the authorities being unable to legally compel you to reveal that you _can_
decrypt the data (and, by extension, that you have some level of knowledge of
or responsibility for it). That is, if they can somehow prove that the data is
yours, a court can order you to decrypt it.

------
rmc
If cases like this go in the US Gov's favour, it'll further damage the US tech
industry. It's already illegal for EU orgs to use US tech companies for
personal data!

------
ycmbntrthrwaway
Please stop calling it crypto _wars_. Calling something a "war" justifies
wartime measures, just as it happens with terrorism, drugs and things like
that.

~~~
zeckalpha
This isn't a new term:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars)

------
lordnacho
What does "undue burden" mean? Wouldn't it be very simple for WhatsApp to
remove the encryption in the app? (Anyone can write an unencrypted app.) Could
they be forced to do that?

IMO that would be awful.

~~~
ycmbntrthrwaway
It is not that simple if you want to stay compatible with clients that are not
updated yet and are not capable of receiving unencrypted messages. You also
have a risk of breaking something, so you need to test compatibility of all
versions etc. The company promised security for all other users, so it
probably wants to remove security only for one specific user, otherwise it
faces popularity loss. The cost of properly removing encryption from an
established network protocol used almost constantly over time is really high.

------
krylon
I find it disturbing how the intelligence and law enforcement community seem
to think there is some kind of natural right for them to snoop on people.

In case of the good old phone system, the very way that worked maked
wiretapping very easy. The same was true for physical mail (one major reason
why most states created and held on to the monopoly on mail for so long).

With email and IM this is - again due to the way this works - a lot more
difficult. Artificially restricting encryption just so they can keep on doing
things the way they're used to is a bad idea, and kind of naive, too.

~~~
edraferi
You're correct to point out that this debate is about a change in the staus
quo: law enforcement used to be able to access the dominant communications
system with a lawful order, proper crypto removes that capability.

It is inevitable that this change, lwft unchecked, will increase citizen
privacy AND decrease law enforcement effectiveness. The HN community is very
aware of these privacy benefits, but skeptical about the security costs. I
wonder how far security must slip before those costs become apparent.

Until that happens, we basically have two camps of experts talking past
eachother. The tech community sees the privacy cost, the law enforcement sees
the security cost. Both back up their claims with "trust us, this is what we
do for a living." This makes it very difficult to create a policy solution.

~~~
nickik
Actually the availabitly of data has massivly increased. They have access to
far more thing then they ever had.

We have few ways to hide metadata and those are of major imprtance.
Investigating crime is now far easier the it was at any time beore 1995 and
the world did go to shit then.

------
alias240
A part of me wonders if I should believe this, and the story about the Apple
case. Or maybe it is all just a conspiracy to gain our trust.

------
1024core
If the USG can force Apple/Whatsapp to decrypt some communication, what
prevents the PRC from doing the same? Will we see Tim Cook arrested the next
time he goes to China?

~~~
XorNot
What stops them now?

I don't understand why people think this is an issue. While you could
certainly imagine the PRC being emboldened, it's not like their history of
human rights abuses has kept them in check. The only thing which does is how
much they love trade with the west, but it would be entertaining the amount of
blowback making a move against Foxconn would create (also worth considering:
China, land of fake electronics components and seizing memory cards at the
border, is where all your iPhones are being made...)

~~~
1024core
Don't you think that if they see Apple handing over iPhone contents to USG,
they will now feel entitled to do the same in China?

------
brudgers
The important aspect of this and the Apple scenario is that the encryption
requires a benevolent third party. Encryption that relies on Eve...well, she
has three faces.

------
throwaway0209
Here the local drug dealers encourage use of a app called Wickr. Does anyone
know how the encryption compares to WhatsApp?

~~~
CiPHPerCoder
[https://github.com/nylira/prism-
break/issues/249#issuecommen...](https://github.com/nylira/prism-
break/issues/249#issuecomment-20631772)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/32hexp/a_secret_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/32hexp/a_secret_app_called_wickr_has_become_isiss_number/)

Don't use Wickr.

Proprietary crypto + an interesting target for NSA because of its popularity
among ISIS = probably snake oil and at the very least makes you a target

"Career criminals recommend it" isn't a good indicator of security. Two things
to consider:

1\. Confidential informants exist

2\. Being a high-risk individual doesn't make you a domain expert

Ask your drug dealers to explain why RSA encryption with PKCS1v1.5 padding is
bad. If they can't, disregard their opinion on cryptography and privacy
technology.

~~~
kough
Yeah, I knew a dispensary owner who told me all about Telegram* and how it was
"really secure" and how the feds couldn't get any of his messages. He was
happy to switch to Signal once I told him a little more.

~~~
ycmbntrthrwaway
> telegraph

Telegram?

~~~
kough
corrected, thanks

------
eyeareque
The only reason the government "gave up" in the previous crypto war was
because they decided to find ways to break or weaken crypto to their needs. I
don't think this time will be any different, one way or another they will get
access to our data.

~~~
nickik
They have done a shitty job at it. Snowden revealed much but non of the real
horror stories have turned out to be true.

Modern standards like SHA3 are designed far better and in a way that make it
way harder for anybody to build in a backdoor.

This is one of the few areas we dont have to worry to much about.

What we need to worry about is addoption of good defaults by the large
majority.

------
venamresm__
There are alternatives to one way encryptions. Think of steganography and
communication between the parties being indirect.

------
sandra_saltlake
Please stop calling it crypto wars..

~~~
JackuB
But headlines love it!

