UK Government Seeking Access to Encrypted Messaging Apps in Wake of London Attack

Amber Rudd, the United Kingdom's home secretary, recently mentioned that it is "completely unacceptable" that the government could not gain access to messages stored on mobile applications protected by end-to-end encryption, such as WhatsApp. Rudd is calling for the UK police and other intelligence agencies to be given access to such apps to thwart any future terrorist plots, coming in the wake of the attack in London last week (via The Guardian).

Rudd's next step is summoning leaders of various technology companies to a meeting with the UK government on March 30 "to discuss what to do." The home secretary mentioned that the government would be willing to pass completely new legislation focusing on encrypted messaging and mobile apps if the talks this Thursday don't go her way. Rudd referred to WhatsApp, and similar apps, as potential "secret places" for terrorists to hide.

But she stressed it was her desire to persuade internet and social media companies to cooperate voluntarily with the government on this and also the posting of extremist material online.

Rudd added: “It is completely unacceptable. There should be no place for terrorists to hide.

“We need to make sure that organizations like WhatsApp, and there are plenty of others like that, don’t provide a secret place for terrorists to communicate with each other.”
Rudd's focus on WhatsApp is spurned by information that Khalid Masood -- the individual behind the London attacks outside Parliament -- used the Facebook-owned messaging app just minutes before the attack. While police believe Masood worked alone, they are seeking as much information about him as possible, including what or who he might have messaged through WhatsApp. While the police know Masood opened WhatsApp before the attacks, it is unknown whether or not he sent or received any messages.

In a statement, WhatsApp itself said that it was "horrified" by the events in London and would be "cooperating with law enforcement" as events proceed. The situation in the United Kingdom has already drawn parallels to the Apple-FBI dispute that lasted a few months last year, with Rudd directly mentioning Apple CEO Tim Cook at one point in an interview with the BBC.
Tim Cook, the chief executive of Apple which also uses end-to-end encryption, has previously said it would be "wrong" for governments to force Apple to "build a back door" into products. But Ms Rudd said: "I would ask Tim Cook to think again about other ways of helping us work out how we can get into the situations like WhatsApp on the Apple phone."
Apple, and those that side with the company, argued last year that it would be a slippery slope to place a backdoor into iOS for the sole purpose of assisting the government in its anti-terrorism measures. The company said that a "master key" would be able to get information from any iPad and iPhone, despite the FBI saying that all it wanted was key information from the iPhone 5c at the center of the debate.

Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.



Top Rated Comments

(View all)
Avatar
28 months ago
Having all the access in the world ain't going to make us any safer...

In fact, I'd argue the opposite.
Rating: 15 Votes
Avatar
28 months ago
'Can we just ban some mathematics, like from the bad people? Is that how it works?' :rolleyes:
Rating: 12 Votes
Avatar
28 months ago

This is so simple to solve yet these "elite" have no idea. Shall I suggest a solution???

Unfortunately, any back door -- even if only Tim Cook has it -- decreases the overall security of a system. It always creates secondary side-effects that break the security of a system. You can't have it both ways: secure system and a convenient way to break the security when desired.
Rating: 10 Votes
Avatar
28 months ago
Hmm, I guess it's a funny situation that I trust not being attacked by terrorists more than a non-EU regulated Tory government.
Rating: 10 Votes
Avatar
28 months ago
Dear Governments,

Is it also "completely unacceptable" that you can't gain access to a conversation that occurred face to face in a private setting days or weeks ago?

Sincerely,
Citizens
Rating: 8 Votes
Avatar
28 months ago
Another clueless MP. Encryption is important for privacy and secure communication (https, banking, government work etc.). Even government contracts mandate encryption of data with third-party companies. It's been said a billion times before, but a master key for one is a master key for all. There would be no security and no privacy if this were to go ahead.

Encryption keeps us and our data safe and secure, and helps us to keep our right to privacy.

Really bad people will just switch to a different app or system if they can't use WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram etc. But really good people will also switch because they don't want to give up their right to privacy.
Rating: 8 Votes
Avatar
28 months ago

Rudd's next step is summoning leaders of various technology companies to a meeting with the UK government on March 30 "to discuss what to do."

What should we do? Well we should clearly let the terrorists win by removing personal freedoms and privacy in a reactionary, thoughtless manner!

The home secretary mentioned that the government would be willing to pass completely new legislation focusing on encrypted messaging and mobile apps if the talks this Thursday don't go her way.

Good to know she is at least open minded about possible solutions before meeting with these companies.

Rudd referred to WhatsApp, and similar apps, as potential "secret places" for terrorists to hide.

Let's be real here. This sort of attack doesn't require any sort of outside coordination. Even if it did, by removing encryption for all users, you just make them less safe and the criminals/terrlorists will be the only ones with encrypted communication. Someone needs to explain to this lady that it's pretty easy to root a device and install whatever sort of encrypted messaging software you can find freely available online.

You see, terrorists will always find a way. The average person will not—but let's not kid ourselves here. She knows exactly what she is doing. They want to limit personal privacy because people who can be easily spied on can be easily controlled. This is all about control and absolute power over the people and nothing at all to do with preventing terrorism. They wait until an attack so they can pull at people's heart strings and get them to give up freedoms and not revolt. Don't get me wrong, what happened was awful and I feel for the families. But we must stand united against opportunistic tyrants such as these. Don't bat an eye and never back down. This is the time when we must stand firm. Educate yourself, spread the word, and understand that it takes each one of us standing together to make a difference.
Rating: 7 Votes
Avatar
28 months ago

Tim Cook doesn't mind when Radical Islamists destroy and terrorize. He will protect their privacy and has nothing to say on the subject. However, if you want to keep Men in the mens room and women in the womens room he will give the FBI, CIA, NSA, whomever all your passwords and encrypted data.

He is a man of integrity.


The problem is not Tim Cook. Terrorism gives governments legitimacy to spy on honest people and collect information and it's been that way since 9/11 it is always easier to attempt to control people when they are afraid or living in a state of fear.
Rating: 7 Votes
Avatar
28 months ago
Our goverment is taking the piss.
Rating: 6 Votes
Avatar
28 months ago

This is so simple to solve yet these "elite" have no idea. Shall I suggest a solution???

Tim Cook has a way to access any iPhone, iPad or mac with a hidden way. He has a way to drop everything that's been done to a memory card. Anything like this happens, the country goes to Apple and on camera opens the product with a few witnesses from the general public and once they have the info needed, Tim Cook signs out and it's back to secure.

It isn't the back door that people fear, it's he back door open to every agency in the world, most of which they don't trust.


I assume this post is in jest?
Rating: 5 Votes
[ Read All Comments ]