Message encryption on social media

[Boac]

A bit of a hot topic at the moment. Can anyone give me a reason why people need encryption on this media unless it is for malicious intent?

[OneHungLow]

A bit of a hot topic at the moment. Can anyone give me a reason why people need encryption on this media unless it is for malicious intent?

Do you not think that government, press, criminal etc. interception of people's private messages, e-mail, etc., might not also be construed as being potentially malicious? Are you one of the, "if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't fear your privacy being invaded brigade!" That brigade being manna from heaven to all of the aforementioned parties and most of all to reactionary, illiberal or downright totalitarian governments!

[llondel]

Because there are way too many people who can read unencrypted private messages that have no business doing so.

[OFSO]

Agree completely with last two posts. Too many snoopers around......

[Boac]

if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't fear your privacy being invaded brigade! worry if anyone sees your message?

What is it that is so critical in your message that it has to be kept secret, and, why do you assume someone will be 'snooping'? Should you be 'scrambling' all your phone calls just in case? Ah - perhaps you do!?

[OneHungLow]

if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't fear your privacy being invaded brigade! worry if anyone sees your message?

What is it that is so critical in your message that it has to be kept secret, and, why do you assume someone will be 'snooping'? Should you be 'scrambling' all your phone calls just in case? Ah - perhaps you do!?

Seriously, let's put it this way, I would scramble my phone if I could, even when discussing you or my great-aunt Maud's lumbago. Having previously lived in a country where my phone, and those of literally 100,000's, if not millions of others, were regularly tapped by the paranoid state over many years because of our opposition to the status quo, I am very aware of the overweening power of even so called democratic states, and their tendency to increase, and abuse that power over time. I am not exaggerating in the slightest, and know full well the power of the state to "legally" invade peoples lives, in order to control and coerce them, and to use even the most banal seeming of information to do those things.

If you could feel comfortable in a Stasi or Chinese like regime, where your arguments would be parroted and encouraged by the state, then that's your look out, but I believe in the right to privacy.

[Boac]

Paranoia rules! Are you happy that your 12 year-old daughter can be groomed by an Asian gang using this encryption, or is your need for 'privacy' so great? Of course, if you are encouraging 'opposition to the status quo' then I can understand, but should you be using social media to do it?

[OneHungLow]

Paranoia rules! Are you happy that your 12 year-old daughter can be groomed by an Asian gang using this encryption, or is your need for 'privacy' so great? Of course, if you are encouraging 'opposition to the status quo' then I can understand, but should you be using social media to do it?

No paranoia doesn't reign and due to my life's experiences your flippancy and apparent lack of understanding of the bigger issues at stake here seems to me to be rather naive. You clearly take the Leibnitzian view of "everything for the best in the best of all possible worlds!" Sadly the world is imperfect, even in the so-called Western liberal democracies...

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/document ... il2023.pdf

Digital surveillance, suppression and distortion is a serious subject.

Your argument above reeks of special pleading! In cases where there are strong grounds for belief that a digital medium is being used for illegal purposes then the law already, at least here in the UK, makes it possible to put the suspects under surveillance within a strongly controlled legal framework. There is no need for randomly sampling mass digital communications to achieve an outcome in specific cases. Demanding that the digital providers like WhatsApp etc. open their apps to ongoing state surveillance by giving the state permanent backdoors into the specific applications is the thin edge of a very dangerous wedge.

[Boac]

So, are you still under 'repression'? Are your communications so 'important' that they must be secret?

Do I assume that because, in your reply, you ignored the misuse of social media encryption you have no issues with the sexual exploitation of children using such? I view that as much much bigger issue. Do you?

There is no need for randomly sampling mass digital communications to achieve an outcome in specific cases. Demanding that the digital providers like WhatsApp etc. open their apps to ongoing state surveillance by giving the state permanent backdoors into the specific applications is the thin edge of a very dangerous wedge.

There's the paranoia. The 'state' already has the means to view encrypted messages.

randomly sampling mass digital communications

about aunt sheila's knee op or Fred's new dog does not worry me unduly. Encouraging a young person to engage in inappropriate sexual activities does.

[OneHungLow]

So, are you still under 'repression'? Are your communications so 'important' that they must be secret?

Do I assume that because, in your reply, you ignored the misuse of social media encryption you have no issues with the sexual exploitation of children using such? I view that as much much bigger issue. Do you?

There is no need for randomly sampling mass digital communications to achieve an outcome in specific cases. Demanding that the digital providers like WhatsApp etc. open their apps to ongoing state surveillance by giving the state permanent backdoors into the specific applications is the thin edge of a very dangerous wedge.

There's the paranoia. The 'state' already has the means to view encrypted messages.

randomly sampling mass digital communications

about aunt sheila's knee op or Fred's new dog does not worry me unduly. Encouraging a [oung person to engage in inappropriate sexual activities does.

The 'state' already has the means to view encrypted messages - Not totally. I agree that many of the encryption protocols in place are easily and quickly decoded by state actors but not all, and keys using 256, or more, like 1024 bytes, takes a long time even for the state actors to decode (the order of days if not weeks using a lot of powerful computers). With the advent of quantum methods even the state will be totally locked out. Of course telephonic comms are open house for the state and for any technically competent operator.

young person to engage in inappropriate sexual activities does. - As it does me too, but you don't need to decrease the privacy of the mass of the innocent population to undertake legal surveillance of suspects (all within the context of protections and assumption e.g. innocent until proven guilty) etc. The law already makes provision for this.

[OneHungLow]

As an aside not necessarily germane to this thread alone, these provocative burning issue threads, serious as they are, are very interesting and make for worthwhile posts, pro and con!

[Boac]

undertake legal surveillance of suspects

To some extent you are missing the point. It is not the 'state' that needs to access all these messages, but parents cannot have any idea what is being exchanged if it is encrypted, and it is normally parental care which looks after a child. The state should only become involved if a crime is identified and then, as I say, the 'state' has the means. This is probably more of a concern to those who are parents.

[OneHungLow]

undertake legal surveillance of suspects

To some extent you are missing the point. It is not the 'state' that needs to access all these messages, but parents cannot have any idea what is being exchanged if it is encrypted, and it is normally parental care which looks after a child. The state should only become involved if a crime is identified and then, as I say, the 'state' has the means. This is probably more of a concern to those who are parents.

Parents have the ability to access the phone itself, and thus have access to the app and thus the messages. If the parents don't have access to the phone and the phone's password that's another issue (or issues). There is no need to access data in situ in or transit with back doors etc. as the government seems to want to do (having seemingly backed down in the WhatsApp case).

[Boac]

That is true, but not ideal. Anyway, we have come along way from my original question (which was why?) and strayed into nefarious government activities. Do children (and the man on the Clapham omnibus) need encryption on social media messaging?

[OneHungLow]

That is true, but not ideal. Anyway, we have come along way from my original question (which was why?) and strayed into nefarious government activities. Do children (and the man on the Clapham omnibus) need encryption on social media messaging?

Like two ships in the night we have sailed past each other Boac.

My last comment on your question "Do children (and the man on the Clapham omnibus) need encryption on social media messaging?", is that in such cases, for the most part, no they don't, but that doesn't mean to say that they shouldn't have it, as the question of statutory enforced open communications, or back doors etc. goes so much further than that limited little omnibus does!

[Boac]

Reading into your posts it seems you are really discussing a method of communication which is not, by any means, a form of 'social media', but a vehicle for the conduct of messaging which could be construed as 'anti-government'/establishment and might require the attention of a particular intelligence agency. In that situation yes, one would certainly need good encryption, but that is not what I was asking about. No-one, surely, could sensibly object to open communications on 'social' issues? I would suggest a securely encrypted email method of message exchange would be more appropriate, and safer?

I would like a discussion about social media - anyone else have any views?

[OneHungLow]

Reading into your posts it seems you are really discussing a method of communication which is not, by any means, a form of 'social media', but a vehicle for the conduct of messaging which could be construed as 'anti-government'/establishment and might require the attention of a particular intelligence agency. In that situation yes, one would certainly need good encryption, but that is not what I was asking about. No-one, surely, could sensibly object to open communications on 'social' issues? I would suggest a securely encrypted email method of message exchange would be more appropriate, and safer?

I would like a discussion about social media - anyone else have any views?

Point taken but I am referring to any digital media, inclusive of social media.

Social media is defined as any type of online service or website that allows users to create and share content and connect and interact with other users in virtual communities or networks. Social media platforms are online tools that allow people to create and share information, ideas, and images with a wide network of connections. They serve a variety of functions, including business promotion and marketing, networking, and staying connected with friends and family.

When considering the somewhat strict premises of traditional social media like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, one can clearly see that WhatsApp, in fact, does not fall into the boundaries of “social networking”.

For example who would want business info to be freely available. In principle all resting data of this kind should be encrypted! If I send a private PM to somebody, here, do I want the government to be able to seamlessly intercept that. Yes I appreciate that in 99.9% of cases such interception may be irrelevant, but the underlying principle of privacy should be sacrosanct! I appreciate, using ops-normal, as an example, if the police wanted to intercept such PM's they would contact the Admin, who would let them have those, but there would be an auditable legal process. Not some opened ended, covert ability to monitor what they liked.

Anyway my last comment on this subject.

[boing]

Tell me why the business of the Government and its branches, that I elected, need to be kept secret when my business should be available to the whole World?

The idea that government has the right to keep everything secret and the individual has the obligation to be completely open is historically the precursor to repression.

You can argue as many special cases as you like but this still does not justify invasion of the privacy of the common man without due cause.


.

[OneHungLow]

Tell me why the business of the Government and its branches, that I elected, need to be kept secret when my business should be available to the whole World?

The idea that government has the right to keep everything secret and the individual has the obligation to be completely open is historically the precursor to repression.

You can argue as many special cases as you like but this still does not justify invasion of the privacy of the common man without due cause.

+1

[John Hill]

The on-line world should not be considered a private space.