Whatsapp And Snapchat 'to Be Banned' By The Conservatives If They Win The Next Election

[sp1814]

This seems pretty outrageous:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/whatsapp-and-snapchat-could-be-banned-under-new-surveillance-plans-9973035.html

An excuse to whittle away at the privacy of all of us, or a sensible step in the battle against terrorism?

[sp1814]

AB Editor - please delete this question. Gromit beat me to it.

[anotheoldgit]

Doesn't the Independent's headline state

"WhatsApp and iMessage could be banned under new surveillance plans"

The clue is in the word 'could'.

[Old_Geezer]

Presumably if they get in.

[wired]

What privacy do you think you have?

[Gromit]

Whatsapp was recently sold lto Facebook for for $19billion.

There are 30billion whatsapp messages sent EVERY day.

I am sure there would be lawsuits if it was banned.

How can the Government possibly search over 18,250,000,000,000 messages a year?

[Gromit]

Might be a bit easier, that should be 10,950,000,000,000 whatsapp messages yearly.

[Old_Geezer]

They don't need to, they just need the ability to target anyone who shows too much dissent and likely to cause difficulties/embarrassment. Err sorry I meant terrorist or criminal inclinations.

[jim360]

Such numbers show that to some extent fears about our privacy being invaded aren't quite justified. Searching the messages could be plausible, but storing those that don't flag up for any length of time is just not.

All the same, this sort of thing really does show that freedom and security can't really coexist perfectly.

[Gromit]

The French had stopped surveilling the 3 terrorists involved last week. If the French had had this facility the authorities would only have been able to confirm after the atrocity, that their had been a plot, which would be self evident anyway.

[Old_Geezer]

This is why a good balance needs to be found. Sufficient ability to hunt the bad guy whilst there is enough protection for the general populous not to be controlled by authorities that are more interested in retaining power and doing things their way. This continuous call to roll back the citizen's privacy every time there is an incident, is a genuine legitimate concern. The same justification can be used all the way down the slippery slope.

[askyourgran]

Any measures to stop infiltration would be a move for the better, just how that can be achieved is another matter. Cyber-terrorism is a real threat.

[sp1814]

Terrorists don't even need to send encrypted messages. I don't know who's advising Mr Cameron on this, but there is a much more effective way of communicating electronically without anyone being able to snoop using online email accounts and draft folders.

[jim360]

Are you sure that would work? Draft emails are still passed from one computer to another, so they must be stored remotely as well, and so vulnerable in the same way as email traffic to being seen by an unwanted third party.