It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
At this stage, the WhatsApp thing is pointless. Three things can happen now:
1 - WhatsApp removes the encryption or provides a back door. Bad people stop using WhatsApp and use something else instead, but everybody else has lost their private communication.
Result: The government can't read the bad people's communications.
2 - WhatsApp don't remove the encryption and put two fingers up to the governments.
Result: The government can't read the bad people's communications.
3 - The government blocks WhatsApp, so bad people stop using WhatsApp and use something else instead but everybody else has lost their private communication.
Result: The government can't read the bad people's communications.
EDIT: In fact, the best-case scenario for the government is #2 now. Why? Because they still have access to the metadata; knowing where messages are come from and going to still provides them with information (and I believe, given WhatsApp's Signal architecture, that's possible), so they can use a court order under current law to see all that. In #1 and #3, they're dealing with a total unknown again.
This isn't Hollywood.
I'm not happy about the government having access to my personal whatsapp messages. I have absolutely nothing to hide, but by the same token I don't see why they should be allowed to read everything I say to people on there.
Yes I'm doing nothing wrong but bythe same token you could build up a pretty good picture of my life by reading my messages. Prime example I text my wife every morning when I arrive at work to let her know I'm here safely.
If someone is looking at you to try and find a link to anything dodgy or illegal they'll find it regardless of it being innocent or not. To anyone reading this if you were questioned by the police about why you were looking for ways to stop the government reading your private messages and they know this because you read this thread what would you say?
@gubble accessed the fretboard 8 times per day, he read a conversation about how whatsapp encryption is used - how do you explain this? I'm innocent, I know I am but I bet they'd use this sort of thing against me if they wanted to
Privacy 100%. Yes I get that people do bad things but unencrypting messaging services isn't going to stop people from doing bad things, they will find another way if security services start eaves-dropping on people.
Also, the argument of not having to be worried if you're not doing anything wrong doesn't hold water for me. We live in a very fast paced world and the possibility that something I do now quite legally becoming prohibited in the future worries me deeply.
There is no 'H' in Aych, you know that don't you? ~ Wife
Turns out there is an H in Haych! ~ Sporky
Bit of trading feedback here.
I'm not locked in here with you, you are locked in here with me.
http://www.online-toolz.com/tools/text-encryption-decryption.php
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/03/27/whatsapps-encryption-keeps-us-safe-attacking-wrong/
I think it's safe to say that Rudd is absolutely clueless.
Even if they are too stupid to understand the technical issues, even a politician must understand that banning Whatsapp will just lose them votes from some of the millions of people who use it.
Seriously...the stuff you see on TV isn't in any way useful for this. Believe me when I say that when thousands of security experts around the world have failed to crack it, it's unlikely that you (or me, or anybody else on this forum) are going to hit on the solution
Presumably they also have his thumb if it uses a thumbprint to unlock it.
If it uses some kind of numeric key code then they ought to be able to crack that.
Access to our personal data, what we look at , what we say on the phone.
Teresa May has two over-riding interests
1) Her puritanical beliefs will frown on anyone even looking at porn
2) She wants info on everyone's financial dealings to see if more tax could or should be getting taken. If the big multinationals are not being asked to pay their way, someone has to make up the shortfall, and it's going to be the average guys.
Also governments would love access to all our banking arrangements, especially once they can get rid of cash to create a cashless society. At the flick of a switch (via a very complicated algorithm) they can turn off our own access to our own money (fools - it was never really ours) and a slave nation results.
Now I know some of that is a bit Orwellian, and seems far fetched, but I'd hate for any of it to become true.
Many guitars have a re-sale value. Some you'll never want to sell.
Stockist of: Earvana & Graphtech nuts, Faber Tonepros & Gotoh hardware, Fatcat bridges. Highwood Saddles.
Pickups from BKP, Oil City & Monty's pickups.
Expert guitar repairs and upgrades - fretwork our speciality! www.felineguitars.com. Facebook too!
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/23/schneier.google.hacking/
Which means criminals will use it as well as foreign governments. This is IMO the main reason Apple and others will not comply - there is no such thing as secure with a back door.
Now about liberty - 6 degrees of separation: how many people can be linked to Osama bin Laden, Isis or any other terrorist?
Also please tell me what is illegal Mr govern man. Can you now explain that to Mr Turing please.
Also...Thatcher unintentionally did us a massive favour in this regard, by privatising the telecoms infrastructure. Previously, it was run by the Post Office Corporation, which was essentially part of the government. If they hadn't split it out as BT, all of our Internet communications infrastructure would be de facto owned and run by the government, meaning that there wouldn't even be a question as to whether they could spy on us or not.