whatsapp to be banned 'within weeks'

[Fez909]

as in "oh lads gemma1245 has just mentioned isis i think we should take a look at this one, oh no forget it now they've moved on to wanking"

I imagine it's even more mundane. Think email inbox mundane.

A list of people to view, with priorities, and chat logs, emails, contacts and whatever as attachments.

 

[frogwoman]

let's say someone was copying and pasting bits from an isis member's blog to someone in an instant message in order to take the piss out of them and laugh at how stupid they were. would that be flagged up?

 

[Fez909]

let's say someone was copying and pasting bits from an isis member's blog to someone in an instant message in order to take the piss out of them and laugh at how stupid they were. would that be flagged up?

Please don't worry...you're not going to be flagged and even if you were, it'd quickly become apparent you're not a threat

 

[farmerbarleymow]

I pictured a team of middle aged men looking through all the skype channels night after night to see what people were talking about and probably picking up loads of people wanking over skype or whatever?

They encountered that problem with I think Yahoo messenger, according to the Snowdon leaks. They appeared surprised at the percentage of people who were using it for such purposes - they're obviously very naive.

 

[frogwoman]

Please don't worry...you're not going to be flagged and even if you were, it'd quickly become apparent you're not a threat

so lets say someone on skype said something like "oh god look whats happened in the news isis have taken over such and such" that wouldn't be flagged up, even if they mentioned words such as "jihad" "syria" and the like, but if the person they were having the conversation with was a radical cleric from dewsbury and they replied sometihng like "oh good" then they would?

 

[Artaxerxes]

as in "oh lads gemma1245 has just mentioned isis i think we should take a look at this one, oh no forget it now they've moved on to wanking"

Its probably just a lot of horny analysts watching people having sex, forget Isis, the security guys have handsful (and an eyeful) with more interesting matters

 

[Fez909]

so lets say someone on skype said something like "oh god look whats happened in the news isis have taken over such and such" that wouldn't be flagged up, even if they mentioned words such as "jihad" "syria" and the like, but if the person they were having the conversation with was a radical cleric from dewsbury and they replied sometihng like "oh good" then they would?

Obviously I'm not a spy ( ) so I don't know exactly how it works, but I imagine what you've just said sounds about right.

 

[frogwoman]

Obviously I'm not a spy ( ) so I don't know exactly how it works, but I imagine what you've just said sounds about right.

so something like

"omg isis have taken over part of damascus this is terrible"
"i agree but this will cheer you up *posts video of Peppa Pig "unexpected jihad" video"
"hahahaha thats so funny, fuck them and their jihad i cant believe they want to chop peoples heads off"
"i agree they have ruined syria and its a disgrace, and fuck them and their "caliph"

= not suspicious

but

"hi brother, have you seen that the islamic state have taken over part of damascus, soon there will be victory in the blessed lands of jihad thanks to our caliph"
"this is great "

= suspicious

 

[Fez909]

so something like

"omg isis have taken over part of damascus this is terrible"
"i agree but this will cheer you up *posts video of Peppa Pig "unexpected jihad" video"
"hahahaha thats so funny, fuck them and their jihad i cant believe they want to chop peoples heads off"
"i agree they have ruined syria and its a disgrace, and fuck them and their "caliph"

= not suspicious

but

"hi brother, have you seen that the islamic state have taken over part of damascus, soon there will be victory in the blessed lands of jihad thanks to our caliph"
"this is great "

= suspicious

C'mon froggy, you know the answer to this

 

[ruffneck23]

so after reading this..... 'So, news has it that WhatsApp could soon be banned in the UK, owing to the strict laws on social media and online messaging services. according to a new legislation to be passed by Prime Minister David Cameron people won’t be allowed to send any encrypted messages. This move is to tackle the recent terrorist attacks and the recent shooting of 27 Britons in Tunisia has now accelerated the process. '.

Where does that leave VPN's ? if they try to ban that encryption every business that uses them is fucked.

 

[Pickman's model]

so something like

"omg isis have taken over part of damascus this is terrible"
"i agree but this will cheer you up *posts video of Peppa Pig "unexpected jihad" video"
"hahahaha thats so funny, fuck them and their jihad i cant believe they want to chop peoples heads off"
"i agree they have ruined syria and its a disgrace, and fuck them and their "caliph"

= not suspicious

but

"hi brother, have you seen that the islamic state have taken over part of damascus, soon there will be victory in the blessed lands of jihad thanks to our caliph"
"this is great "

= suspicious

you've fucked the site now

 

[frogwoman]

 

[Fez909]

Good luck on your holy war against the infidels frogwoman

 

[sim667]

so after reading this..... 'So, news has it that WhatsApp could soon be banned in the UK, owing to the strict laws on social media and online messaging services. according to a new legislation to be passed by Prime Minister David Cameron people won’t be allowed to send any encrypted messages. This move is to tackle the recent terrorist attacks and the recent shooting of 27 Britons in Tunisia has now accelerated the process. '.

Where does that leave VPN's ? if they try to ban that encryption every business that uses them is fucked.

I don't understand how they can ban encrypted messages if people already have the apps to send encrypted messages.

Realistically if they ban all encryption in the UK, then we may as well just turn off the internet, as no-one will be able to pay bills, do online banking, or anything like that. It would probably give me the push I need to get rid of my mobile phone too (i've been thinking about it for some time)....

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

so after reading this..... 'So, news has it that WhatsApp could soon be banned in the UK, owing to the strict laws on social media and online messaging services. according to a new legislation to be passed by Prime Minister David Cameron people won’t be allowed to send any encrypted messages. This move is to tackle the recent terrorist attacks and the recent shooting of 27 Britons in Tunisia has now accelerated the process. '.

Where does that leave VPN's ? if they try to ban that encryption every business that uses them is fucked.

This can't be true can it? I don't believe it. It's like trying to ban the internet itself.

 

[frogwoman]

I don't understand how they can ban encrypted messages if people already have the apps to send encrypted messages.

Realistically if they ban all encryption in the UK, then we may as well just turn off the internet, as no-one will be able to pay bills, do online banking, or anything like that. It would probably give me the push I need to get rid of my mobile phone too (i've been thinking about it for some time)....

that's a really good point actually. they havent thought this through have they

 

[Fez909]

I don't understand how they can ban encrypted messages if people already have the apps to send encrypted messages.

Realistically if they ban all encryption in the UK, then we may as well just turn off the internet, as no-one will be able to pay bills, do online banking, or anything like that. It would probably give me the push I need to get rid of my mobile phone too (i've been thinking about it for some time)....

I think the proposals are talking about banning strong encryption between users, such as those which are so secure that the provider(s) involved cannot intercept them, even if they wanted to. Your bank uses encryption, but it's only to their end. They could easily be forced to give up information on you and your transactions and they would comply. If two persons of interest were using an unbreakable encryption to communicate between themselves, then no matter what pressure you put on the company providing the messaging protocol, there's nothing you can do to read the info.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

To be fair, governments have been very successful in stopping online music piracy, so I'm sure they'll pull this one off without hitches.

 

[frogwoman]

Good luck on your holy war against the infidels frogwoman

yeh, just booked my ticket to gaziantep*, looking forward to some nice hot weather

(is that suspicious or not?)

*not really

 

[not-bono-ever]

You don't have to worry too much about encryption when you are using a 10 year old throwaway mobile and an anon top up card.

People get diverted by the complex shit but it's the mundane that is spy craft bread and butter

 

[Fez909]

yeh, just booked my ticket to gaziantep, looking forward to some nice hot weather

(is that suspicious or not?)

More like Gitmo for you

RIP froggie. She had so much life to live, so much to give.

 

[frogwoman]

because i wrote articles slagging them off in a very thorough and detailed way, my grandma was convinced i was going to get beheaded lol

 

[Artaxerxes]

We all laughed a couple of months ago, but I don't think anyone thought it'd happen so quickly

“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone',” he said.

 

[frogwoman]

To be fair, governments have been very successful in stopping online music piracy, so I'm sure they'll pull this one off without hitches.

Yeah tbh I thought they were already doing everything in this bill anyway.

 

[Lurdan]

The story that's being quoted is a piece of clickbait based on a Daily Express article.

Worth recalling where this all comes from. The Tories intend to introduce a bill (apparently called the Investigatory Powers Bill).

The Tory Manifesto said :

We will keep up to date the ability of the police and security services to access communications data – the ‘who, where, when and how’ of a communication, but not its content. Our new communications data legislation will strengthen our ability to disrupt terrorist plots, criminal networks and organised child grooming gangs, even as technology develops. We will maintain the ability of the authorities to intercept the content of suspects’ communications, while continuing to strengthen oversight of the use of these powers.

The Queen's Speech announced

New legislation will modernise the law on communications data, improve the law on policing and criminal justice.

The Government briefing pack about the Queens Speech said the bill to be introduced would

• Provide the police and intelligence agencies with the tools to keep you and your family safe.
• Address ongoing capability gaps that are severely degrading the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies ability to combat terrorism and other serious crime.
• Maintain the ability of our intelligence agencies and law enforcement to target the online communications of terrorists, paedophiles and other serious criminals.
• Modernise our law in these areas and ensure it is fit for purpose.
• Provide for appropriate oversight and safeguard arrangements.

The benefits of this being

Better equipping law enforcement and intelligence agencies to meet their key operational requirements, and addressing the gap in these agencies’ ability to build intelligence and evidence where subjects of interest, suspects and vulnerable people have communicated online.

Maintain the ability of our intelligence agencies to target the online communications of terrorists, and other relevant capabilities.

Back in January Cameron made not entirely clear comments about message encryption Urban thread here.

As a result of those comments there has been speculation that this new bill will go beyond requiring ISPs to retain metadata and putting what GCHQ etc already do on a legal footing, to address a 'capability gap' where specific services don't retain metadata, or even require the ability to monitor the content of communication. But at the moment that is all speculation. We don't know that the bill will address end to end encryption or ban services which don't retain metadata or allow eavesdropping.

The Guardian's take on the proposed legislation at the time of the Queens Speech
Security services' powers to be extended in wide-ranging surveillance bill

It will be very interesting to see what the Investigatory Powers Bill contains when it's actually published.

 

[Supine]

Don't blackberry, Facebook, google etc etc send all data encrypted these days?

The gov can obviously still access it. Is something different with whatsapp or is this whole story a load of rubbish?

 

[frogwoman]

thanks for the post Lurdan, really informative - yeah, when I read the article i did think that it sounded a bit alarmist but it's really hard to tell the difference between fact and fiction at times based on the utterly ludicrous stuff the government often come out with.

 

[Fez909]

Don't blackberry, Facebook, google etc etc send all data encrypted these days?

The gov can obviously still access it. Is something different with whatsapp or is this whole story a load of rubbish?

There's a few different ways of encrypting something, and they each have different weaknesses/strengths. I'll try to explain them here.

Normal, insecure websites (no encryption)

Dave ----->>> typing something ---->>> Random website

Nothing is encrypted here. Anyone could pretend to be the random website and intercept the message and read it easily. It could also be read by staff at any ISPs that are snooping on data travelling between their routers (there are often several steps between you and the website's servers).

This is equivalent to sending a postcard whereby anyone who handles it before it reached your mam and dad can read the contents.

Dave doing online banking (HTTPS)

Dave ----->>> password ------>>> HSBC

In this type of encryption, Dave has entered his password on a secure website. It's encrypted from the point it leaves his browser until it hits HSBC's servers. Anyone can see that Dave is doing something on HSBC's website, but they don't know what. The message is encrypted. HSBC staff know what he's told them as they have the keys to decrypt it (the HTTPS certificate on their servers). Facebook et al also work like this

This is equivalent to sending a message in an envelope. The security services could force HSBC to let them see everything

End-to-end encryption

Dave ---->>> unsolicited dick pic ----->>> WhatsApp ----->>>> Sue

Here, there's a middle-man acting as a delivery service, like WhatsApp, or iMessage, but the final destination is another user. The dick pic is encrypted by the app at Dave's end and stays encrypted until it reaches Sue, who can decrypt it with her app. In theory, none of the staff at WhatsApp can read the message, but as they are in control of the app, you cannot guarantee that they haven't got the keys for every user. In such a case, they could decrypt the message under orders from Mi5 and see Dave's erect member. Apple claim they don't even have the keys to their iMessage service, so even under orders they cannot decrypt the message. Of course, confiscating either phone will give Mi5 what they need here.

It's equivalent to sending a photocopy of your picture in the mail in an unbreakable, locked chest that only you and the recipient know the combination to. And perhaps the chest manufacturer

Strong encryption (not sure the proper term for this)

Dave ---->>> top sekrit message ---->>> local encryption program ---->>> some method of file transfer ---->>> Sue ---->>> local decryption program

Here, the message is encrypted by Dave before he sends it, so he knows* that even if it's intercepted on the way, no one can read it without his decryption code, which only Sue has. If the security services get hold of the message, they can't read it. If they go to Dave's house and take his computer, unless they find the code, they still can't decrypt it. Same as Sue's end.

This is equivalent to sending a postcard in a language that only you and the recipient speak.

*Snowden claims the NSA and friends have tried to get flaws inserted into 'safe' algorithms.

The last two are the ones the spies hate. The Bad Guys will be using the last one, mostly (if they're not stupid).

 

[Lurdan]

thanks for the post Lurdan, really informative - yeah, when I read the article i did think that it sounded a bit alarmist but it's really hard to tell the difference between fact and fiction at times based on the utterly ludicrous stuff the government often come out with.

Well indeed, who knows what delights they will think up next. And of course in this area Labour will be even more supine than normal given that the origins of the Coalition's failed 'snoopers charter' go back to proposals made by the Brown government. On the other hand when the 'Communications Data Bill' was blocked by Lib-Dem veto they then also failed to get its provisions added as amendments to the 'Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill' because of opposition in the Lords. I suspect their ambitions in this bill will be somewhat more modest than the wilder speculation suggests, not least since May will not want another defeat or bruising 'half-victory' on her CV.

That's without getting into the practicalities of what 'banning' an encrypted service entails.

 

[Orang Utan]

Banning is ridiculous, but i don't like how these apps are used to bully and bitch.