E2E encryption: Should big tech be able to read people's messages?
E2E encryption: Should big tech be able to read people's messages?
Who will win in the years-long stalemate between governments and big tech around super-secure messaging?
No, they shouldn't.
That's the end of the argument.
It's not even a question (outside of clickbait bs by news agencies)
For sure.
E2E should never be broken by the 3rd party enabling the communication.
That would defeat the purpose
As a reminder: Without end-to-end encryption, criminal and terrorist hackers can read your messages ... and your legislators' messages, too.
What if I told you it's to help stop pedophiles? That's not really the truth, but what if I told you that?
Legislators and executive branch will be exempt, of course
If the headline is a question, the answer is no
What better headline would you propose in this case?
I don't think that rule is valid here, the question isn't there because the answer is definitively "no" and they just want clickbait, it's there because the actual article is about the question.
(Side note: I'm aware most people here will strongly argue that the answer is no, and I agree, but that is not my point.)
No
Of the 1,723 adults surveyed across the UK, 73% said technology companies should, by law, have to scan private messaging for child sexual abuse and disrupt it in end-to-end encrypted environments.
Found this interesting. I found the survey results here: https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/68pn2b6b57/NSPCC_OnlineSafetyBill_230427_W.pdf
The exact question I believe is being referred to was:
And do you think technology companies should or should not be required by law to use accredited technology to identify child sexual abuse in end-to-end encrypted messaging apps?
This seems like a really bad question, since it implies a coexistence of end to end encryption and big tech companies being able to read people's messages, which doesn't really make sense (or at least requires more clarification on what that would mean). The question as it is is basically "do you think child sexual abuse is bad".
The answer is still no. They always say it is meant to protect children but they will stuff in loopholes to let them do whatever they want, then people in positions of power will still fuck kids and get away with it as long as they don't incriminate other people in even higher positions by being alive.
This is such a common way to attack people pushing for privacy by indirectly calling them pedophiles or pedophile supporters. But what about, for example, gay people living in a country where gay people are not accepted, treated violently, or even killed. Just a simple message could out someone and put them in danger. I have a friend that went home to Russia maybe about a decade ago and was using encrypted messaging in his communications to get him and his lover out. Now with Putin having his post-midlife crisis and dragging in everyone else it's even shittier for the little guy just trying to survive in a place where he can't trust anyone. I'm sure there are plenty of other equally important examples but there are a lot of people in my family and friends that are LGBT.
If it came down to a vote on a politician I would favour fixing foster care and adoption over 'preventing child sexual abuse' since most of the individuals using that as part of their platform seem wholly untrustworthy buzzword abusers or even projecting and are the problem rather than the solution. I can't think of any names off the top of my head but recall someone putting up a list of confirmed offenders in a discussion about how in America the republicans often call the democrats pedophiles but there is apparently a disappointing amount on both sides with a loooot on the side making the accusation.
Also if tech companies(who do they even refer to) can scan so called encrypted messages, there is literally nothing stopping them from scanning or just saving whatever they want. The question is just flawed to begin with even before the part where they coerce the answer they want using fear of being labelled as a pedophile.
As an ORG donator. Where's the counter survey?
"Do you support companies weaking encryption for all?"
"Do you support hackers reading your purchases?"
"Do you support your employer knowing your sexual preferences?"
"Do you support MI5 knowing your whereabouts every 5 minutes?"
Weakening encryption isn't actually possible, what we'll do is drive things underground. And without US backing, it's all a silly endeavour
It's shocking to me how these freaks can get away with saying "we don't think your communications should be private" with a straight face
Should the mail carrier be allowed to read your mail?
Yes definitely. And I should be able to walk into the homes of big tech's executives and look through all their shit.
No. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
Giving big tech access to E2E encrypted messages will give consumers a false sense of security while still selling their data. This has been discussed in the whole chrome incognito article (link). I cannot imagine a world in which big tech won't use this data to try to sell more. Big tech will always be a business and a business's goal is to make money in anyway possible. Governments on the other hand can use this to fight crime and stop abusers.... but we would need to trust the government to do this appropriately and safely.... me as an American have been fooled by this one too many times to trust the government to act appropriately with this data.
If you ask it like that, then the answer is no for 100% of people. All of the sudden say that work e2ee will cost them some features and worse texting clients, then people go right back to not caring lol.
no, but proving they can't is something else entirely
Conversely, why not if they can track my online activity, social media presence, shopping and voting habits. I mean they listen to conversations I'm having to make recommendations for ads so why not read my email too? Shit, they probably have enough information to just guess what's there based off like 7 pieces of data. Or maybe they agree they won't but you'll use a browser that'll read it as you do.
That said if you're not paying for your email or anything else, you're the product and arguably letting businesses read your email is the tradeoff, which is crazy that we ever collectively agreed to that for so long.