There’s a nice article in The Economist by Defence editor Shashank Joshi on “How Encrypted Messaging Apps Conquered The World” — though I’m not convinced they have, not yet. There’s more scope for end-to-end encrypted security by default and by no means is it ubiquitous technology.
There’s a footnote: This article appeared in the International section of the print edition under the headline “The new crypto wars?” — I feel the print title is more apt, but this is reasonable coverage.
I found the article via the author’s tweet, which also usefully provides a thread of links to original sources which he consulted (including my primer) – a pattern that I would love to see other journalists copying. If you’re not a subscriber (I used to subscribe, now I just buy occasional copies) the article is archived elsewhere.
Everybody Deserves Good Security™
For me, the most compelling and regrettably unchallenged quotes come from Rick Jones of the National Crime Authority, firstly:
“A lot of these companies have dug themselves into a black and white, binary position,” says Rick Jones of Britain’s National Crime Agency.
…well yes, Rick, the assertion that “nobody can see your messages” is a binary one, so what would you expect to have happen? Should WhatsApp deceive its customers about this feature, or should they perhaps add a codicil like “…apart from your local Law Enforcement and any of their subcontractors, plus maybe some middlemen we and they hopefully have vetted?”
And then:
[Jones] acknowledges that privacy is important …. “I’m not certain that we need to go all the way to having every platform that children use in their homes and bedrooms having a similar level of weapons-grade encryption. Why does a 13-year-old need that level of encryption?”
Answer:
“Because if you’re in a position to deny someone access to privacy on the grounds that they are 13 years old, then either you’re a parent and can encourage a suitable method to protect them, or else you’re a politician and are in the totalitarian position of selectively denying citizens the freedom to communicate in private.”
…but that’s not how police like to see themselves. It’s pretty simple observation, and one which is odd for a nanny state which otherwise is trying to stop people making unhealthy choices like smoking: why would you want the default option for everyone’s communication to be anything other than the best security you can get, viz: that the only people who can see a message are the people to whom I sent it?
Leave a Reply