'Firearms incident' at Westminster

[skend04]

Rudd's plans for the encryption key to WhatsApp were rubbished this morning by a cybersecurity professor and a retired general. Was listening to R4 and the professor was saying that WhatsApp don't even possess they key and the Major said it's purely political rather than at any request by the security services. The security services have little issue joining the dots in their investigations without access like Rudd has mentioned. Furthermore if politicians got hold of the encryption key there'd be no stopping the likes of Russia doing the same for their own nefarious ends.

[Section_31]

If there's one thing I've learned during my working life, there's no way this country would have the organisational skills and brains to pull off any kind of mass surveilance, it'd take about 50 years and come in about 100billion over budget, with most of the money landing in the pocket of a 'millenial' and her husband who went to school with David Cameron's kid.  

[Denny Crane]

It's the old argument about people carrying around a device that enables its location to be transmitted, governments must love it.

If a bad actor wanted to collect the worlds secrets all he'd have to do is create a free messaging app.

I think you underestimate the level of security in end to end encryption and the maths behind it. Only the sender and receiver have access to the information. There is no cloud no archive no master access by whatsapp. Sender clicks and sends, the information is then encrypted; only the receiver can has the ability to decode it.

 

There are some providers who use weaker encryption or who don't have the strength Whatsapp do. Whatsapp use a 256 bit encryption; which is 1.1×1078 basically 1.1 followed by 78 zeros. The super computer hasn't been designed yet that has the computing power to break this in a fast timescale.

[Rico1304]

I think you underestimate the level of security in end to end encryption and the maths behind it. Only the sender and receiver have access to the information. There is no cloud no archive no master access by whatsapp. Sender clicks and sends, the information is then encrypted; only the receiver can has the ability to decode it.

 

There are some providers who use weaker encryption or who don't have the strength Whatsapp do. Whatsapp use a 256 bit encryption; which is 1.1×1078 basically 1.1 followed by 78 zeros. The super computer hasn't been designed yet that has the computing power to break this in a fast timescale.

I get that, but if the app doesn't actually use that encryption (every time) how would you know? Like the bank telling you your money is locked in a vault but it's actually in a carrier bag under the desk.

[stringvest]

I get that, but if the app doesn't actually use that encryption (every time) how would you know? Like the bank telling you your money is locked in a vault but it's actually in a carrier bag under the desk.

 

 

you've been stung by valet parking at the airport as well then?

[VladimirIlyich]

The Data Protection Act only allows you to keep billing data and log data on communications.

 

If you kept all messages sent by millions of people on a daily basis then you'd need to store it somewhere. Thats billions of messages daily. Data storage isn't free.

 

Of course that doesn't stop governments intercepting and archiving messages inflight, which is what they do. They don't need private companies to do it for them.

GCHQ. Tempora?

[Rico1304]

GCHQ. Tempora?

echelon.

[M_B]

GCHQ. Tempora?

 

Exactly. The traffic is harvested inflight and then they search the data with software that looks for keywords. They can't do that with WhatsApp messages though because they can't get through the encryption.

[Bjornebye]

I sent my willy to a girl over snapchat once. No doubt about 34 people in an office in Taiwan went mental.

[Rick Sanchez C-137]

Exactly. The traffic is harvested inflight and then they search the data with software that looks for keywords. They can't do that with WhatsApp messages though because they can't get through the encryption.

 

That's only if you trust whatsapp. There could be "master keys" present, through they say they employ the signal protocol, which, if they do, would mean it is secure end to end.

 

Besides, the content isn't the only important thing. If someone has all the meta data on everyone (who they are texting, how frequently, when etc) then they already have too much IMO. No one should have that except your phone company.

[Section_31]

I sent my willy to a girl over snapchat once. No doubt about 34 people in an office in Taiwan went mental.

 

I sent mine to some bird I'd just started seeing via text along with the words 'good morning', Boxing Day 2006, she went apeshit because her two year old was in the next room (?) 

[Total Longo]

I sent mine to some bird I'd just started seeing via text along with the words 'good morning', Boxing Day 2006, she went apeshit because her two year old was in the next room (?) 

 

You should have said "Merry Christmas" instead. 

[M_B]

That's only if you trust whatsapp. There could be "master keys" present, through they say they employ the signal protocol, which, if they do, would mean it is secure end to end.

 

Besides, the content isn't the only important thing. If someone has all the meta data on everyone (who they are texting, how frequently, when etc) then they already have too much IMO. No one should have that except your phone company.

 

Meta Data is a different kettle of fish and yes that is kept by phone companies but presumably intelligence services harvest that too. I agree that data should be strictly controlled.

[cloggypop]

The Dutch government tried to force internet and telephone companies to keep data and give them access but the courts threw it out two years ago

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/12/data-retention-netherlands-court-strikes-down-law-as-breach-of-privacy

[stringvest]

Most data is strictly controlled, in that organisations harvesting data are regulated in terms of what data an be captured and the way that data can be distributed and used.  However over 90% of the general population are unaware or have expressed no interest in restricting access and/or use of captured data captured beyond the minimum DPA regulations.   

[Tony Moanero]

.

[Rick Sanchez C-137]

Most data is strictly controlled, in that organisations harvesting data are regulated in terms of what data an be captured and the way that data can be distributed and used.  However over 90% of the general population are unaware or have expressed no interest in restricting access and/or use of captured data captured beyond the minimum DPA regulations.   

 

In my experience "strictly controlled" doesn't mean that much. It might be legislated but how often is it checked? How strong and frequent are the checks? I can't name names but I used to work for a company who was accidentally breaching data protection laws for YEARS without even realising. Then when someone made them aware of it they went "oh shit" and threw out/destroyed the data they were holding on file. So they never got found out despite not even trying to hide it. If someone is trying to hide it, well, it's even less likely to get found out. Arguably though it'd be harder to fly under the radar with something as large with mining and storing every text or voice conversation without a leak or whistle blower.

[TheBitch]

Rico's head proper fell off in here last night.

[stringvest]

In my experience "strictly controlled" doesn't mean that much. It might be legislated but how often is it checked? How strong and frequent are the checks? I can't name names but I used to work for a company who was accidentally breaching data protection laws for YEARS without even realising. Then when someone made them aware of it they went "oh shit" and threw out/destroyed the data they were holding on file. So they never got found out despite not even trying to hide it. If someone is trying to hide it, well, it's even less likely to get found out. Arguably though it'd be harder to fly under the radar with something as large with mining and storing every text or voice conversation without a leak or whistle blower.

 

 

There are all sorts of contraventions of the DPA, and of other data protection, security and privacy standards - large, small, conscious, unconscious - happening under the nose of almost every IT department almost every day.   And, quite often, within the IT department.  And it might be a little complacent/naive to think that there might not be other channels of access to our data.

[Rico1304]

Rico's head proper fell off in here last night.

Did it? I was pissed up on booze.

[cloggypop]

Did it? I was pissed up on booze.

You still thought it was Moof working in IT this morning!

[Rico1304]

You still thought it was Moof working in IT this morning!

I only sobered up about 12. Felt like shite. Had to get the train to Leeds as couldn't drive.

 

It was a shite appeal to authority!

[Section_31]

Rico has just discovered he's not economically viable. 

 

[VladimirIlyich]

I sent my willy to a girl over snapchat once. No doubt about 34 people in an office in Taiwan went mental.

Hey Joe,you so big. 50 dollars for fucky sucky.

[General Dryness]

I sent my willy to a girl over snapchat once. No doubt about 34 people in an office in Taiwan went mental.

Unsurprising. I believe they eat maggots over there.