Support NeoGAF

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I understand, so maybe there are other ways to address this particular issue, like banning encrypted messaging apps from app stores. They will still exist, other places will host them where possible, but it instantly reduces the number of people able and likely to use them, and the increasing prevalence of their use if they are not mainstream. It is just not acceptable for the world to move onto communications that cannot be accessed by authorities where needed, and on this, probably just this, I agree with Amber / Theresa.

Yo, we've been using HTTPS, TLS, SSL, and all sorts of encrypted, forward-secure, decentralized technology for decades. Everyone uses these security measures without ever thinking about it, because it's part of the basic services of the Internet. Just making a Google search on your logged in Google account is encrypted by default. Firefox and Chrome updated within the last few months to show warnings on insecure sites, because secured, encrypted communication and access is the default.

You've got to look up more on this topic. I think you just heard something from a nation's leader and said "that sounds right" and went all in with the idea without having a proper counterbalance of research and facts to back up your arguments. Does that sort of falling in line without using independently earned knowledge usually make for strong arguments or positions?

 

[JonnyDBrit]

Already happened IRL:
Master Key for TSA-Approved Locks Leaked Again.
http://www.pcmag.com/news/346422/master-key-for-tsa-approved-locks-leaked-again

God fucking dammit, I didn't expect there to be a literal case of this.

 

[Costia]

It is just not acceptable for the world to move onto communications that cannot be accessed by authorities where needed, and on this, probably just this, I agree with Amber / Theresa.
.

You are still missing the point. This is already the case, and unless you have a time machine to stop the invention of encryption, there is nothing you can do about it.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Yo, we've been using HTTPS, TLS, SSL, and all sorts of encrypted, forward-secure, decentralized technology for decades. Everyone uses these security measures without ever thinking about it, because it's part of the basic services of the Internet. Just making a Google search on your logged in Google account is encrypted by default. Firefox and Chrome updated within the last few months to show warnings on insecure sites, because secured, encrypted communication and access is the default.

You've got to look up more on this topic. I think you just heard something from a nation's leader and said "that sounds right" and went all in with the idea without having a proper counterbalance of research and facts to back up your arguments. Does that sort of falling in line without using independently earned knowledge usually make for strong arguments or positions?

I'm talking specifically in regards to messaging apps, that have become very popular. The more popular they become, the less means police have to access important information.

And I hate my 'nations leader' with a passion only equaled by my loathing for Donald Trump. I do not take what she says as any kind of gospel, just my position has always been that police should be able to access this kind of data. I took the same position with the US Iphone saga. It is not a new point of view for me.

You are still missing the point. This is already the case, and unless you have a time machine to stop the invention of encryption, there is nothing you can do about it.

As above, what about moving to make such messaging services not easy to obtain and use? That would be effective in reducing the uptake if nothing else. There are solutions to this problem to be found, as with all problems. I may not have them, but someone will.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I think the government acting as if they need to peek into every little bit of people's lives to 'protect us against terrorism' is itself a little bit overblown.

Terrorism is combatted in schools, on workplaces and in neighborhoods. Not primarily through military endeavors and spying. Until governments learn that there they will always keep chasing the symptoms of terror instead of actually solving the causes of terror.

Oh, I don't agree that the government needs to be able to see everything and collect all data. But I have zero problems with tapping messaging apps and internet usage of individuals after a court has approved it. And encryption does make that a lot harder. Of course there are ways around it (getting malware on the PC or phone to track keyboard input for example, but then you need to break into the device first).

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I'm talking specifically in regards to messaging apps, that have become very popular. The more popular they become, the less means police have to access important information.

But still, you're assuming they need to have that access, or that that access is part of some right. It's not. People can have private communication with anyone they want, using any method they want, whether it's burner phones, Tor, VPNs, secret meetings with no technology, underground bunker hangouts, or just straight up peer-to-peer messaging within a certain radius. There isn't some "central data source" to tap, unless we're talking about getting into commercial CDNs and cloud service databases. People can, have, and will have secret conversations, and there's nothing forceful or absolute we can do about it, unless we're willing to have every device and location on earth be insecure. Is that scenario more or less unacceptable than end-to-end encryption, a basic security standard the Internet depends on to function?

Also, really, all your arguments have depended on all people being simple enough to only use commercial and popular services. No one doing anything criminal is using these things, man. These things evolve daily.

 

[Costia]

As above, what about moving to make such messaging services not easy to obtain and use? That would be effective in reducing the uptake if nothing else. There are solutions to this problem to be found, as with all problems. I may not have them, but someone will.

Not easy to obtain and use? Its a math equation. You can even write it yourself.
Only the people who are not aware of the need for encryption, i.e. the general public, will get hurt by becoming more vulnarable to criminal attacks.

Edit: also, the law will only apply to your country, so terrorists coming from overseas will not be hampered by such restrictions. It's only the security in your country that will get hurt.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

But still, you're assuming they need to have that access, or that that access is part of some right. It's not. People can have private communication with anyone they want, using any method they want, whether it's burner phones, Tor, VPNs, secret meetings with no technology, underground bunker hangouts, or just straight up peer-to-peer messaging within a certain radius. There isn't some "central data source" to tap, unless we're talking about getting into commercial CDNs and cloud service databases. People can, have, and will have secret conversations, and there's nothing forceful or absolute we can do about it, unless we're willing to have every device and location on earth be insecure. Is that scenario more or less unacceptable than end-to-end encryption, a basic security standard the Internet depends on to function?

Also, really, all your arguments have depended on all people being simple enough to only use commercial and popular services. No one doing anything criminal is using these things, man. These things evolve daily.

That is a fair assumption though? Given that monitoring of traditional communications has solved crimes and saved lives, unless you dispute that is the case.

And yes, ease of use is directly related to uptake and volume of use. Do you believe this is not the case?

Not easy to obtain and use? Its a math equation. You can even write it yourself.
Only the people who are not aware of the need for encryption, i.e. the general public, will get hurt by becoming more vulnarable to criminal attacks.

You are being disingenuous if you believe that it is as easy to create and use your own method of encrypted messages on phones between two people than it is to download something from the play store. It is obviously not, at all.

 

[Costia]

You are being disingenuous if you believe that it is as easy to create and use your own method of encrypted messages on phones between two people than it is to download something from the play store. It is obviously not, at all.

I am not. It is easy.
If you have an android phone you can install an APK from anywhere.
You will need to jalbreak an iphone, thats the only obstacle if encrypted apps wont be in the store. You can litteraly find a step by step explanation on google how to do that.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

That is a fair assumption though? Given that monitoring of traditional communications has solved crimes and saved lives, unless you dispute that is the case.

You're going back to the purposely vague George W Bush 9/11 era security vs liberty argument. Can you quantify or qualify this tradeoff in a way that can convince me? Do you have statistics? I don't have to prove anything to you about the way things are, you're the one who has to convince us why we should change by posting some hard information instead of your guesses.

You are being disingenuous if you believe that it is as easy to create and use your own method of encrypted messages on phones between two people than it is to download something from the play store. It is obviously not, at all.

You're the person talking about removing ease of use as a UX solution to potentially defeat or weaken encryption as if that's a relevant conversation in the realm of criminality online. It reveals a lack of knowledge on your part about anything at all regarding this subject. Cite some stuff.

 

[StayDead]

Tories keep on screwing the lives of anyone who isn't a tory.

Seriously, everyone who voted for these people should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

I am not. It is easy.
If you have an android phone you can install an APK from anywhere.
You will need to jalbreak an iphone, thats the only obstacle if encrypted apps wont be in the store. You can litteraly find a step by step explanation on google how to do that.

I said this earlier, that they will still exist and other places will still host the apps, but they are barriers that lower mainstream usage, and growing user bases of the equivalent of them being available to app stores. If they continue to be top apps in respective stores, their usage will only continue to grow. When half the world uses them by default, the police have lost a powerful tool to save lives by monitoring traditional communications. Barriers such as a requirement to jailbreak, or download from browsers on your phone in unknown sites are viable options to prevent this uptake which would be damaging.

I better mind than mine will find a solution, but I stand by one being needed.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Does this guy even know open source exists?

You're writing about app stores popularizing encryption, as if there's some sort of threshold we can't pass, where too many people are encrypted. We've been telling you: most of the Internet is already encrypted.

Half the Internet's communication and data was already protected by HTTPS around 2016: http://fortune.com/2015/04/30/netflix-internet-traffic-encrypted/ Did you know Netflix is encrypted?

 

[BibiMaghoo]

You're going back to the purposely vague George W Bush 9/11 era security vs liberty argument. Can you quantify or qualify this tradeoff in a way that can convince me? Do you have statistics? I don't have to prove anything to you about the way things are, you're the one who has to convince us why we should change by posting some hard information instead of your guesses.

You're the person talking about removing ease of use as a UX solution to potentially defeat or weaken encryption as if that's a relevant conversation in the realm of criminality online. It reveals a lack of knowledge on your part about anything at all regarding this subject. Cite some stuff.

You want me to provide you with evidence that police forces being able to monitor traditional communications has saved lives? I feel like the only reason you would ask me that is to waste my time. I'll bite for a single link. Between January 2012 and January 2015 the UK police force made a request for communications data almost every two minutes. I suppose none of these were in any way useful or required to solve crimes and save lives?

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

You want me to provide you with evidence that police forces being able to monitor traditional communications has saved lives? I feel like the only reason you would ask me that is to waste my time. I'll bite for a single link. Between January 2012 and January 2015 the UK police force made a request for communications data almost every two minutes. I suppose none of these were in any way useful or required to solve crimes and save lives?

These are requests for data, not examples of breaking encryption. You really, really need to read at least one thing about encryption before taking on a conversation of this scope about it. :/

Also, that article is only talking about the "metadata," a topic you can read about in the three books I linked earlier in this thread!

Communications data includes the "who, where and when" - but not the actual content - of personal texts, emails, phone calls and web searches.

I don't ask you to cite things to waste your time. I don't care about you. I just want you to be smart and knowledgeable about the thing you've spent an hour talking about now. Are you actually interested in this subject and solving it, or is it just about being right about something you honestly know you've never researched?

 

[hodgy100]

I understand, so maybe there are other ways to address this particular issue, like banning encrypted messaging apps from app stores. They will still exist, other places will host them where possible, but it instantly reduces the number of people able and likely to use them, and the increasing prevalence of their use if they are not mainstream. It is just not acceptable for the world to move onto communications that cannot be accessed by authorities where needed, and on this, probably just this, I agree with Amber / Theresa.



Those two are fair points I would not dispute.

So now you have stopped encrypted messaging apps on download stores. So Isis code their own and distribute it themselves. Legislating in that way will stop small time criminal activities yes.but it will not stop those that are determined to cause massive harm.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

These are requests for data, not examples of breaking encryption. You really, really need to read at least one thing about encryption before taking on a conversation of this scope about it. :/

Also, that article is only talking about the "metadata," a topic you can read about in the three books I linked earlier in this thread!

You didn't ask me for that, and seemingly want to just insult me. I'll waste my time with you no more.

So now you have stopped encrypted messaging apps on download stores. So Isis code their own and distribute it themselves. Legislating in that way will stop small time criminal activities yes.but it will not stop those that are determined to cause massive harm.

It will not, I do not dispute that. It will however assist a currently growing problem.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

You didn't ask me for that, and seemingly want to just insult me. I'll waste my time with you no more.

Can you point any of us to anything you've ever read about encryption and its intersection with terrorism and criminality? A single thing.

I'm not insulting you by pointing out you haven't demonstrated any applied knowledge of the subject to us. You're doing that to yourself. The other people in this thread have displayed obvious knowledge of the subject, but you're continually talking in vague terms and generalities about security vs liberty without qualification. Do you normally talk this much about things you don't research or know about? Do you always assume your gut feeling on a subject is right?

 

[hodgy100]

It will not, I do not dispute that. It will however assist a currently growing problem.

So terrorists still communicate covertly, which is counter to the point of trying to push this kind of legislation. So all you have achieved is less secure communications for me and you.

And that's ignoring that encryption is used in the majority of data transactions online. Any of which can also be used to send a message.

 

[Costia]

I said this earlier, that they will still exist and other places will still host the apps, but they are barriers that lower mainstream usage, and growing user bases of the equivalent of them being available to app stores. If they continue to be top apps in respective stores, their usage will only continue to grow. When half the world uses them by default, the police have lost a powerful tool to save lives by monitoring traditional communications. Barriers such as a requirement to jailbreak, or download from browsers on your phone in unknown sites are viable options to prevent this uptake which would be damaging.
I better mind than mine will find a solution, but I stand by one being needed.

This is exactly my point.
It will be a barrier for the mainstream users, not for people who are actively trying to hide information.
Getting more mainstream users to use unbreakable encryption is a good thing. It makes them less likely to be successfully targeted by criminals.
While on the other hand it has absolutely no effect on criminals, they can encrypt anything they want anyway.

Another problem is that its not even an enforcable law.
For example the USA has a law against exporting encryption. PGP still exists...
There is now way to delete or remove things from the internet, even if the US/UK will really really want it.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Can you point any of us to anything you've ever read about encryption and its intersection with terrorism and criminality? A single thing.

I'm not insulting you by pointing out you haven't demonstrated any applied knowledge of the subject to us. You're doing that to yourself. The other people in this thread have displayed obvious knowledge of the subject, but you're continually talking in vague terms and generalities about security vs liberty without qualification. Do you normally talk this much about things you don't research or know about?

You are making specifications about my own words and position that I did not. I have never mentioned things you are asking me to cite in your quest to stealthily admonish me, such as the prevalence of encryption with terrorists. It isn't about being right, mine is a moral position, that access to this data when relevant is important, and must be catered to where possible. Where not possible, it's prevalence reduced. I take this position because of the need for police forces to access such data, which is beyond dispute to any sensible person, as has been the case with traditional communications for a long time.

 

[Regulus Tera]

You just need someone to leak shady private conversations by a politician or a business person and you will see how quickly they flip on their stance on privacy.

 

[DavidDesu]

Saw the BBC yesterday constantly making a point to mention this guy might have sent a Whatsapp message and they kept saying encrypted as if it was something nefarious. Absolutely knew this would be coming soon from the government. Their whole apparatus operates so fucking obviously and we all lap it up. Fuck Brexit Tory Britain, we're heading for V For Vendetta territory in a decade from now...

 

[StayDead]

You just need someone to leak shady private conversations by a politician or a business person and you will see how quickly they flip on their stance on privacy.

Oh no, these people will have privacy anyway. That's just how it works.

It's like all the privacy laws that came in before regarding browsing history. it doesn't affect politicians.

 

[hodgy100]

Bibi if we could give police access to encrypted data without sacrificing every other internet users security I'd be all for it.

Unfortunately that is not the case.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I take this position because of the need for police forces to access such data, which is beyond dispute to any sensible person, as has been the case with traditional communications for a long time.

Usually when one says such a thing, they cite their sources or basis for their opinion.

Again, you're assuming in everything you say that you're right. You're doing this in conversations for over an hour where you haven't been able to produce a single source of knowledge from which you've learned about this subject. This makes it clear you have a strong feeling about something you just read about for minute, and you're willing to bet that your feeling is more right than facts laid out by security experts and the designed infrastructure of the Internet for decades. Just cite something. Why is your position the correct one? Show your work.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

Bibi if we could give police access to encrypted data without sacrificing every other internet users security I'd be all for it.

Unfortunately that is not the case.

It's definitely noticeable how the specific point of 'and making everyone else's security more vulnerable to criminals?' keeps getting glossed over here...

 

[Protome]

Disgusting but not surprising that politicians are leaping on a tragedy like this to try and turn people against things like encryption. Demonise things which are good for the general public then take them away, typical bullshit.

 

[Visualante2]

During the London riots Blackberry gave the master key for BBM to the police.

 

[Kuga]

The simple fact is that a backdoor for law enforcement is a backdoor for everybody, including criminals.

What happens when you build a backdoor into, say, an iPhone, and then that information gets leaked a year down the road?

The CIA lost their hacking tools; the NSA had leaks via contractors. We can't trust the government to keep their own private data secure.

Who is to say that whatever exploit is built into software doesn't end up public information on the internet and suddenly hundreds of millions of devices are vulnerable (or at least weaker from a security perspective)?

Also, even without the exploit becoming public knowledge, who is to say that hackers won't try to reverse engineer the backdoor? You're intentionally building weakness into a system.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Usually when one says such a thing, they cite their sources or basis for their opinion.

Again, you're assuming in everything you say that you're right. You're doing this in conversations for over an hour where you haven't been able to produce a single source of knowledge from which you've learned about this subject. This makes it clear you have a strong feeling about something you just read about for minute, and you're willing to bet that your feeling is more right than facts laid out by security experts and the designed infrastructure of the Internet for decades. Just cite something. Why is your position the correct one? Show your work.

I've stated the basis of my opinion already, - obvious because using traditional communications data in crimes has been happening since before Columbo aired - and provided you with a link detailing the vast number of requests police make in just the UK, but you want to continue this charade as if I have not. You want me to provide you with written evidence of the most obvious concept, one that is surely well known to you and everyone else, because why? As I said, I can only conclude to waste my time, or perhaps because you are not grasping my position, which again, has been set out clearly not posts ago.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I've stated the basis of my opinion already, - obvious because using traditional communications data in crimes has been happening since before Columbo aired - and provided you with a link detailing the vast number of requests police make in just the UK, but you want to continue this charade as if I have not. You want me to provide you with written evidence of the most obvious concept, one that is surely well known to you and everyone else, because why? As I said, I can only conclude to waste my time, or perhaps because you are not grasping my position, which again, has been set out clearly not posts ago.

This is a topic about end-to-end encryption, not authorities asking for metadata of conversations, which they can already get easily, as shown by your link.

If it's so obvious, you could provide a source behind anything you've said. What do you know? Lay it out for us. You're the one trying to convince us you're right. As it is, you've got seemingly a dozen people here all patiently trying to tell you the Internet has always had encryption, it's just math, and obviously a fully insecure, "opened" Internet is not actually safer for civilians than encryption for personal privacy as a root feature of the Internet.

 

[KDR_11k]

Sure, why not ban companies keeping non-employees out of their facilities? Because encryption is important for more than just crime. Any secret place for terrorists is also a secret place for companies where they can transfer company secrets without competitors or governments interested in industrial espionage listening in. All these backdoors that western govts ask for end up in the hands of Chinese intel agencies and they're very interested in getting that secret research info.

 

[Costia]

.... As I said, I can only conclude to waste my time, or perhaps because you are not grasping my position, which again, has been set out clearly not posts ago.

The problem is, your moral possition, even if i were to agree with it, is not something that can be done in practice.
The proposition of banning end-to-end encryption will not help your cause.
If you think otherwise, please explain.

Edit:
Here is a link to PGP: http://openpgp.org/
Please explain how do you intend to remove it from the internet.
Or why clicking the download button is a complex task that an average criminal won't be able to perform.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

This is a topic about end-to-end encryption, not authorities asking for metadata of conversations, which they can already get easily, as shown by your link.

If it's so obvious, you could provide a source behind anything you've said. What do you know? Lay it out for us. You're the one trying to convince us you're right. As it is, you've got seemingly a dozen people here all patiently trying to tell you the Internet has always had encryption and that it's just math.

It is about more than that, Amber is complaining about it's use in messaging services specifically, which I am discussing from my moral viewpoint. You attempts to repurpose my position, claim I need to backup things I never mentioned, and now define the subject of the topic for your own needs is embarrassing.

The problem is, your moral possition, even if i were to agree with it, is not something that can be done in practice.
The proposition of banning end-to-end encryption will not help your cause.
If you think otherwise, please explain.

Only as much as I have, that limiting it's use and uptake, by providing barriers to it is better than nothing at all. Not all criminals have the smarts to find other sources. Those that do are on the same grounds.

 

[Marquis]

They are most likely peeking into WhatsApp and other apps already.

 

[Acorn]

They are most likely peeking into WhatsApp and other apps already.

Whatsapp was reported to have a backdoor at the beginning of the year. The Guardian removed it as a recommend method to contact them because of it.

 

[MUnited83]

You are being disingenuous if you believe that it is as easy to create and use your own method of encrypted messages on phones between two people than it is to download something from the play store. It is obviously not, at all.

I barely know any programming and I could pump out a basic encrypted messaging app in a day.
Anyone terrorists that want to communicate between them has more than enough resources to make such a app themselves.

 

[Costia]

Only as much as I have, that limiting it's use and uptake, by providing barriers to it is better than nothing at all. Not all criminals have the smarts to find other sources. Those that do are on the same grounds.

Read my edit. There are no barriers that you can put.
All you need to do to get end-to-end encryption is click a link and a download button.
And there is nothing a law can do about it.
I can even give you a magnet link, so even if you took down all the sites on the internet - it will still work.

It will work only on the most stupid of criminals, and in exchange you are putting all the legitimate users in your country at risk.

 

[HazySaiyan]

Typical Tory attempt to grab even more power. They're shameless.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

I barely know any programming and I could pump out a basic encrypted messaging app in a day.
Anyone terrorists that want to communicate between them has more than enough resources to make such a app themselves.

Read my edit. There are no barriers that you can put.
All you need to do to get end-to-end encryption is click a link and a download button.
And there is nothing a law can do about it.
I can even give you a magnet link, so even if you took down all the sites on the internet - it will still work.

It will work only on the most stupid of criminals, and in exchange you are putting all the legitimate users in your country at risk.

Do you not think it fair to say that less people will do this, than would download a popular app from their respective phones store? I am not arguing that people determined to be hidden would be effected, just that the greater volume of people communicating in this fashion daily, the less effective communications data will be to police. I think that is a legitimate problem, and that by reducing the visibility of such apps also reduces their prevalence, which I think is generally sound a position to take. I accept absolutely, that those determined to hide communications in such a way will always be able to do so.

 

[Acorn]

Do you not think it fair to say that less people will do this, than would download a popular app from their respective phones store? I am not arguing that people determined to be hidden would be effected, just that the greater volume of people communicating in this fashion daily, the less effective communications data will be to police. I think that is a legitimate problem, and that by reducing the visibility of such apps also reduces their prevalence, which I think is generally sound a position to take. I accept absolutely, that those determined to hide communications in such a way will always be able to do so.

You're literally arguing to increase surveillance even though it won't work(your admission) and will only affect law abiding citizens because reasons?

 

[Costia]

Do you not think it fair to say that less people will do this, than would download a popular app from their respective phones store? I am not arguing that people determined to be hidden would be effected, just that the greater volume of people communicating in this fashion daily, the less effective communications data will be to police. I think that is a legitimate problem, and that by reducing the visibility of such apps also reduces their prevalence, which I think is generally sound a position to take. I accept absolutely, that those determined to hide communications in such a way will always be able to do so.

I have already answered it. In a reply to you...
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=232801468&postcount=120
The more people using encryption the better - it will prevent more crimes.
While the effect of this on law enforcement is basically non-existant due to the ease of acces to encryption to the ones who want it.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

You're literally arguing to increase surveillance even though it won't work(your admission) and will only affect law abiding citizens because reasons?

I have already answered it. In a reply to you...
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=232801468&postcount=120
The more people using encryption the better - it will prevent more crimes.
While the effect of this on law enforcement is basically non-existance due to the ease of acces to encryption to the ones who want it.

For decades it has been well known police can access your phone records, they are still used today for convictions, because people use them knowing this all the same. Those that are smarter don't do this, and are unaffected, but the practice is still useful. I am applying the same mentality here. I don't believe it would not be of use, because evidence suggests people still use things they know can be monitored when they are common place. I don't accept that not allowing encrypted messaging apps on stores would increase crime, but get your point about crimes that are prevented because encryption is present.

 

[Costia]

... I don't accept that not allowing encrypted messaging apps on stores would increase crime, but get your point about crimes that are prevented because encryption is present.

You are contradicting yourself in the same sentence. (also, double negatives are hard to read)
Encryption prevents crime. Less encryption = more crime.
I don't understand why you are willing to help the police investigate crimes that have already happened, at the expense of privacy and security, rather than prevent crimes from happening in the first place.
And i still maintain my possition that it won't actually help the police in the vast majority of cases. It's an insane sacrifice of privacy and security for the puprose of a tiny gain in helping investigations.

Encryption is absolutely essential today. You won't be able to buy anything online without exposing your CC and personal data without it. Any data you will type online will become instantly public.
Math does not differentiate between police and criminal. It's just math.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

You are contradicting yourself in the same sentence.
Encryption prevents crime. Less encryption = more crime.

No contradiction, I'm saying agreed that encryption prevents crime in general, but not so much specifically with an encrypted messaging service such as these. Not having whatsapps in the major phone markets doesn't increase crime.

 

[Costia]

No contradiction, I'm saying agreed that encryption prevents crime in general, but not so much specifically with an encrypted messaging service such as these. Not having whatsapps in the major phone markets doesn't increase crime.

Then it wont help solve any crimes either.
The more popular something is, the more it is targetted by hackers.
If you are saying it's not popular enough to be targeted, then its not popular enough to be usefull to the police either. These things come hand in hand.

 

[Elfforkusu]

Ubiquitous end-to-end encryption will happen, law enforcement needs to stop bitching and sabotaging, and start adjusting.

 

[George Washington]

As if these tech companies don't already provide backdoors. Also, it doesn't matter what the application is doing after the fact that the operating system / hardware has been compromised. It's hilarious that they always want to justify sweeping surveillance but the reality is that there is widespread incompetence.

 

[iMax]

IIRC the Snooper's Charter has hit a brick wall thanks to the European court.

No, it became law.