Cameron Whats To Make Your Phone Messages Less Secure

[Gromit]

At the moment, if you use services such as Whatsapp or FaceTime, your communications are encrypted to stop people prying on you.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/12/british-prime-minister-suggests-banning-some-online-messaging-apps/?_r=0

Cameron has used the tragedy in France to attack our privacy. He wants the encryption banned because the Government are not able to read your messages.

Of course there is no evidence that the terrorists in France used Whatsapp or FaceTime. That is just a pretext to make our message less secure.

Should we accept that our messages are less secure and therefore more open to fraud and blackmail just so Governments can snoop on us?

[Gromit]

Cameron Wants To Make Your Phone Messages Less Secure.

[sp1814]

AB Editor

It appears that both Gromit and I (great minds and all that) thought of the same question at the same time.

Can you please delete my question, times at 14:16. Only polite as Gromit got in there first.

[Old_Geezer]

So we will all be more secure if we got rid of the security measures ?

It is just this sort of thing that makes a party unelectable. They all have different things as that are unacceptable but whoever gets in will claim a mandate to do whatever they want.

Anyway it isn't beyond the wit of terrorists to encrypt their messages. If phone apps are to be scrutinised it should be to prevent user abuse, unwarranted permissions, data grabs, and worse.

[ludwig]

No. As I said before, security services would like nothing better than to be able to have access what anyone is saying to anyone else all the time. Why wouldn't they - It makes their job easier. Whenever there's an attrocity like this they use it to push for extra powers.

I personally think constant surveillance of every medium is too big a price to pay for any extra protection we might get out of it.

[anotheoldgit]

I am not bothered what the government finds interesting in my phone calls, but then I don't think they would be bothered using valuable resources listening in to me, they would be more interested in the Anti-West ones who wish the UK harm.

[ichkeria]

Of course they won't ban these applications. What might have to be done is ban allegedly 'uncrackable' codes. Tho how you would do that I am not sure.
Not sure I see the point of unbreakable codes for civil comms where there's no need for them.

[Gromit]

AOG,
You are missing the point. Making your messages easier to intercept means that criminals can scan your phone, search for bank passwords, credit card details. You are volunteering to put your money in a more vulnerable place just so the Government can pry. If terrorists want to communicate they will find another way.

[sp1814]

If I need to send details of my bank account number and sort code to a mate so that he can pay money into my current account, I will use WhatsApp because I know the data packages are encrypted.

I want the freedom of choice to be able to use an encrypted data transfer protocol, and we should not accept the erosion of that freedom on the basis that terrorists might also be using the system.

Once you hand over a sliver of personal freedom to the government, you don't get it back.

[sp1814]

AOG

WhatsApp and Snapchat aren't audio communications systems.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814
AOG

/// WhatsApp and Snapchat aren't audio communications systems. ///

Perhaps not at the moment.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/14574/20140902/whatsapp-set-to-launch-free-voice-calls-hello-skype-and-viber.htm

[TWR]

I don't think they are interested in car Issues Gromit.

[buildersmate]

SP your concern is spurious.
Every time you (or any bank customer) issues a cheque it contains your sort code and account number on it. This is not information that is (or needs to be kept) secure.

I sigh deeply every time individuals such as Gromit or organisations like Liberty attempt to wind people up over this.

Point 1: you can't stop organisations eavesdropping onto communications signals. Wireless is out there for anyone with big enough ears. Cables have been tapped into since Victorian times (undersea telex cables, for example).

Point 2 : (virtually) all systems of encryption can be broken given enough time. That's the point - the time it takes, even for those with huge budgets and virtually infinite storage capability. Think cracking Enigma, then scale up millions of times over.

Point 3 : Having broken it, you then seek to see if any content appears relevant by a matching technique - does it contain key matched data of potential source of interest. If so, you go back trawling for similar data from the same source, unencrypt that and look there too. There aren't armies of people listening with headphones, whatever. Its about data matching. Tiny needles within in massive haystacks. And at best you are sometimes guessing what the 'needle' you are searching for actually looks like.

Point 4 : You have to do all of this quickly before your interim storage of the world's data transmissions made in the last x days runs out, when you write over the data with more recent transmissions. Old data is then lost forever. Time is important.

Snoopers charter? Pah, get real. I'm more interested in keeping tabs on individuals interested in causing harm.

[ladybirder]

Have I told you lately that I love you BM;-))

[buildersmate]

:))

Evidently Gromit wasn't the slightest bit interested in debating the subject - just wanted his 'name' prominently displayed on Answerbank. Sadly a growing trend.