If that means compromising encryption, which it does, then the benefits to everyone of end-to-end encryption and the protection it affords against government overreach and abuse tend to outweigh the benefits of government spying.
Comment on Apple pulls data protection tool after UK government security row
SleafordMod@feddit.uk 1 month ago
Controversial opinion: maybe it’s a good thing to allow law enforcement to access communications when necessary (e.g. with a court warrant)
Do we want serious criminals like terrorists and paedophiles to be able to plan their crimes with impunity?
floofloof@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
SleafordMod@feddit.uk 1 month ago
Maybe only the biggest companies should be required to be able to decrypt certain messages if a court warrant is produced. Privacy fans could use services exempt from this requirement, like Signal. But there are laypeople who just use iMessage because it’s the default, and you could catch criminals sending bad stuff over iMessage.
I think there are valid concerns on both sides of the argument… but I am just imagining if you have a group of violent people planning an attack over iMessage, I want law enforcement to be able to read those messages.
smeg@feddit.uk 1 month ago
Can’t law enforcement already read those messages by getting a warrant to seize the suspect’s phone and attempting to break into it? Why do they suddenly need to preemptively break into everyone’s phone?
SleafordMod@feddit.uk 1 month ago
I guess I think of it like bugging a phone. The technology for bugging phones has been around for a long time, but that doesn’t mean the authorities are bugging everybody’s phones all the time. Even if they can theoretically listen to everyone’s conversations, that doesn’t mean they are always listening. There would be too many conversations to listen to.
floofloof@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Word would just get out that you should only use the secure services to communicate anything sensitive. We already have plenty of messaging services that are insecure, but enough people are preferring to use a secure option that it’s worrying the UK Government.
SleafordMod@feddit.uk 1 month ago
Maybe people just use what’s popular. Telegram is pretty popular in some countries even though I don’t think they have end-to-end encryption by default.
Anyway I guess I don’t know what the answer is. Personally I would probably still use iMessage and WhatsApp even if I knew the companies behind them could potentially read my messages by decrypting them. If there’s a proper system in place so that messages are only read when there’s a court warrant, it’s probably unlikely my boring messages to friends and family would be spied on by anybody.
Maybe I need to send more interesting messages and then I would care about the privacy of them a bit more.
davesmith@feddit.uk 1 month ago
The question is do you want serious criminals including financial criminals, and whatever authoritarian government shows up at some point and starts tearing up the already increasingly authoritarian UK rule book (hi America) to have access to all communications? Do you want to protect stuff like online shopping? What about https, that protects the sniffing of data in transit across the internet, so a huge chunk of online privacy?
You don’t get one without the other.
It must be said that personal privacy is a cornerstone of a civilised society. You either ahve that or you don’t.
SleafordMod@feddit.uk 1 month ago
I don’t want end-to-end encryption entirely outlawed. But for the biggest platforms from massive corporations, maybe those corporations could keep their encryption keys stored with high security somewhere, so they can decrypt particular messages if a court warrant is issued.
People who are uneasy about that could go to a more privacy-focused platform like Signal. Some criminals would do that too, but at least something would be done to catch criminals on the popular platforms.
davesmith@feddit.uk 1 month ago
I understand where you are coming from, but the encryption is not secure if somebody else holds your password.
SleafordMod@feddit.uk 1 month ago
Fair points. Also I guess practically big companies like Apple would never allow a situation where their encryption is compromised while encryption on smaller platforms like Signal isn’t. Apple etc would spend billions lobbying so such a situation never happens.
smeg@feddit.uk 1 month ago
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, I’m assuming you don’t know that likening anyone who doesn’t want to have all of their personal information viewed to terrorists and paedophiles is the classic “what do you have to hide?” authoritarian argument to spy on everyone all the time.
SleafordMod@feddit.uk 1 month ago
I’m not comparing privacy fans to paedophiles and terrorists, that’s not what I mean. What I mean is that I want serious criminals to be caught.
I think properly private technology is good to protect yourself from an authoritarian government for example. You could use something like Signal for messaging (I’ve not used it, but apparently it’s good).
But the big popular platforms like WhatsApp and iMessage, which many laypeople use just because they’re popular - on those platforms I think it makes sense for law enforcement to be able to access messages, but only in certain circumstances. So maybe Apple could keep the encryption key and they could decrypt someone’s messages if a court warrant is issued.
I’m not saying end-to-end encryption should be entirely outlawed. Hopefully services like Signal would still exist. Sure, some criminals might jump to those platforms, but you could still catch some at least, who use big services like iMessage.