Potential Banning of Whatsapp in UK / Dispution of BTC businesses ??

[Brockspeculator]

If I can suggest you one thing, start to use telegram is more secure than whatsapp.


https://telegram.org/ 


Here you can find the technical side/protocol:

 - https://core.telegram.org/mtproto

What ever happened to bbm these days?

[Borisz]

If I can suggest you one thing, start to use telegram is more secure than whatsapp.
https://telegram.org/ 
Here you can find the technical side/protocol:

 - https://core.telegram.org/mtproto

What ever happened to bbm these days?

This and similar things show that if you are not the only owner of your encryption keys then governments can oblige (threaten) companies to reveal your secrets. I used to love BBM, but when something like this comes up, I don't know whom to trust.

RIM recently demonstrated a solution developed by a firm called Verint that can intercept messages and emails exchanged between BlackBerry handsets, and make these encrypted communications available in a readable format to Indian security agencies, according to an exchange of communications between the Canadian company and the Indian government.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-08-02/news/33001399_1_blackberry-enterprise-encryption-keys-corporate-emails

[Addition]

Highlights taken from an article writen 3Hrs ago, gives decent wrap on situation:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/social-media/11736230/Will-WhatsApp-really-be-banned-in-the-UK.html

" Home Secretary Theresa May has announced that a draft for a new Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA) will be published in the Autumn, with a view to introducing a Bill early in the New Year, or by December 2016 at the latest.

DRIPA builds on the proposals put forward in the Communications Data Bill – better known as the "Snooper's Charter" – which was first introduced to parliament in May 2012, but blocked at the last minute by the Liberal Democrats under the coalition government.

The Communications Data Bill proposed that communications service providers should store all details of online communication in the UK – including the time, duration, sender and recipient of a communication, and the location of the device from which it was made – for 12 months. "

"If the legislation is passed, Whatsapp, Snapchat, iMessage and other popular apps that use end-to-end encryption will be forced to hand over messages to intelligence agencies, if the sender of those messages is under suspicion. If they refuse, they could potentially be banned in the UK. "

"WhatsApp, and its parent company Facebook, declined to comment on whether they would be willing to concede to the UK government's demands for data. However, Facebook already receives thousands of UK government requests for user data, and complies with about 75pc of them. "

"Given Facebook's policy on complying with government data requests, WhatsApp is likely to end up complying too – although there is bound to be plenty of debate before that happens. Ultimately, the government knows that banning WhatsApp in the UK would be a PR disaster, so it will no doubt do its best to reach a compromise. "


Cheers for those who posted WhatsApp alternates, good to know there are plenty of others out there - We'll have to see what happens when this "Charter" comes into effect (September-December 2015). For now we'll press on ahead with setting up a Ltd for our BTC business in UK and evaluate compliance/migrating business to another jurisdiction if we need to.  

[AT101ET]

It's irritating but then again not the end of the world. When Whatsapp was released it was one of the only free fast and secure messaging services offered. It became widely accepted and it became the new best communications application. There have been many companies who have used what Whatsapp have created and have implemented newer and better features such as telegram. If the government do manage to block Whatsapp then another application will take its place and so on. The government can fight but this is a war they'll never win. To be honest, I highly doubt that this will result in anything. Whatsapp will stay as it has always been.

[gentlemand]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/31/theresa-may-backtracks-on-internet-snooping

They've backed down on the idea now. I guess it was explained to them that it wasn't viable. Let's see what idea pops into their heads now.

[Quantus]

Unless they make it illegal to use all VPNs and P2P networks, I would love to see them try.

[franky1]

Also, talk about mixed messages.  GCHQ, the government's own security and intelligence agency seem quite fond of cryptography, educating and raising awareness about cyber security.  Way to undermine one of the few good things you're managing to achieve, Dave.

GCHQ have secret agenda..
one agenda is to tell people their lives are at risk, purely to gain permission to get hacked..
but we all know if we opened our front doors there are no terrorists in our gardens.. infact over the last 15 years only 3000 out of 65million have been affected.
(more have died due to poverty related suicides, but government wont protect that!)

imagine it.. 40,000 died because of UK government in 3 years.. but 1000 died and 2000 injured due to terrorists in 15 years..
proves that social security is twisted the wrong way round..

so by GCHQ informing people to use encryption, their intention and agenda is to then use that as the excuse to then say that hacking is then needed as the way to get around encryption..

[Snorek]

When will people get you can't stop Bitcoin and no government on this planet has the power to stop it....


People need to man up and say screw the authorities, if the people don't want something g then guess what you shouldn't have it, government is made for the people not the other way around...

You are forgetting about North Korea. And there are many other places where bitcoin is not seen as good invention either. We are not even aware how our lives are being monitored and tinkered with on daily basis.
There not that much needed to shut down bitcoin or seriously crippled its potential.

[DooMAD]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/31/theresa-may-backtracks-on-internet-snooping

They've backed down on the idea now. I guess it was explained to them that it wasn't viable. Let's see what idea pops into their heads now.

I get the impression the idea is to try passing as much authoritarian legislation as possible before they get thrown out.  I'm sure we'll be revisiting this issue again in the not-too-distant future.  They'll probably bundle it in with TTIP and try again with that.  Vile, devious parasites.

[HI-TEC99]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/31/theresa-may-backtracks-on-internet-snooping

They've backed down on the idea now. I guess it was explained to them that it wasn't viable. Let's see what idea pops into their heads now.

I get the impression the idea is to try passing as much authoritarian legislation as possible before they get thrown out.  I'm sure we'll be revisiting this issue again in the not-too-distant future.  They'll probably bundle it in with TTIP and try again with that.  Vile, devious parasites.

They tried openly getting it through a few times. Now that's failed they will probably try to sneak it in without anyone noticing. It could work if they do it gradually and disguise any new legislation as if it's for something completely unrelated to snooping. They will just get it in through the back door.

[gentlemand]

They tried openly getting it through a few times. Now that's failed they will probably try to sneak it in without anyone noticing. It could work if they do it gradually and disguise any new legislation as if it's for something completely unrelated to snooping. They will just get it in through the back door.

How would they do it? There've already been cases in the US like Apple telling the authorities they couldn't let them into encrypted stuff even if they wanted to. I think the government may finally have listened to the people they pay to actually tell them useful facts.

[HI-TEC99]

They tried openly getting it through a few times. Now that's failed they will probably try to sneak it in without anyone noticing. It could work if they do it gradually and disguise any new legislation as if it's for something completely unrelated to snooping. They will just get it in through the back door.

How would they do it? There've already been cases in the US like Apple telling the authorities they couldn't let them into encrypted stuff even if they wanted to. I think the government may finally have listened to the people they pay to actually tell them useful facts.

Perhaps you're right, I don't know how they would do it, but they have clever people working for them who must be considering it. Just because I can't think of a sneaky way of doing it doesn't mean they can't.

[gentlemand]

Perhaps you're right, I don't know how they would do it, but they have clever people working for them who must be considering it. Just because I can't think of a sneaky way of doing it doesn't mean they can't.

It's quite possible they're using the civil liberties reason to cover up the fact that their experts have told them that it would effectively destroy modern finance and commerce as we know it.

Either way there are thousands of very vigilant people scanning for this type of thing. Even if they did try and sneak it out it would blow up immediately.

[e1ghtSpace]

Government is made for the people not the other way around...

Exactly! I feel like lately the government really hinders the growth of many technologies. Luckily in Australia they seem a little more accepting. Which is a nice thing. I mean they actually are now allowing bitcoin to be used in businesses.

[Tstar]

Unless they make it illegal to use all VPNs and P2P networks, I would love to see them try.

That would be awesome, an attempt to make VPns and P2P networks illegal. So much fun!

In any case, IMHO this story is simply ridiculous

“In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which […] we cannot read?” He (David Cameron) made the connection between encrypted communications tools and letters and phone conversations, both of which can be read by security services in extreme situations and with a warrant from the home secretary.

Orwell's 1984 was nothing compared to what he says
 

[harrymmmm]

Unless they make it illegal to use all VPNs and P2P networks, I would love to see them try.

That would be awesome, an attempt to make VPns and P2P networks illegal. So much fun!

In any case, IMHO this story is simply ridiculous

“In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which […] we cannot read?” He (David Cameron) made the connection between encrypted communications tools and letters and phone conversations, both of which can be read by security services in extreme situations and with a warrant from the home secretary.

Orwell's 1984 was nothing compared to what he says
 

Next up:
blanket ban on whispering
pillowtalk!
ban on talking inside your car with closed windows?

jesus.

[DooMAD]

Unless they make it illegal to use all VPNs and P2P networks, I would love to see them try.

That would be awesome, an attempt to make VPns and P2P networks illegal. So much fun!

In any case, IMHO this story is simply ridiculous

“In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which […] we cannot read?” He (David Cameron) made the connection between encrypted communications tools and letters and phone conversations, both of which can be read by security services in extreme situations and with a warrant from the home secretary.

Orwell's 1984 was nothing compared to what he says
 

Next up:
blanket ban on whispering
pillowtalk!
ban on talking inside your car with closed windows?

jesus.

Worse, actually.  Next up on the tory-to-do-list is scrapping the Human Rights Act.  Things like the right to free speech and peaceful protest, or protection against forced labour are all about to come under threat.

[SerenaL]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/31/theresa-may-backtracks-on-internet-snooping

They've backed down on the idea now. I guess it was explained to them that it wasn't viable. Let's see what idea pops into their heads now.

One day these old farts will be out of office and away from our internet.

[Kprawn]

The funny thing is... many of these idiots are pointing a finger at China and other nations, but they are now trying to do the same thing. They know people are getting fed up

with them, and they want to curb communication over encrypted media, because they cannot follow these communications. You cannot travel in Londen without being tracked.

The stupidity behind this policy is bonkers... Do not implement some policy that would weaken your civilians right to privacy and give them the reason not to vote for you in the

next election. 

[Tstar]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/may/22/edward-snowden-rights-to-privacy-video

"People who say they don't care about privacy because they have got nothing to hide have not thought too deeply about these issues. What they are really saying is I do not care about this right. When you say I don't care about the right to privacy because I have nothing to hide, that is no different than saying I don't care about freedom of speech because I have nothing to say or freedom of the press because I have nothing to write."

http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/

To describe the problems created by the collection and use of personal data, many commentators use a metaphor based on George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. Orwell depicted a harrowing totalitarian society ruled by a government called Big Brother that watches its citizens obsessively and demands strict discipline. The Orwell metaphor, which focuses on the harms of surveillance (such as inhibition and social control), might be apt to describe government monitoring of citizens. But much of the data gathered in computer databases, such as one's race, birth date, gender, address, or marital status, isn't particularly sensitive. Many people don't care about concealing the hotels they stay at, the cars they own, or the kind of beverages they drink. Frequently, though not always, people wouldn't be inhibited or embarrassed if others knew this information.

Another metaphor better captures the problems: Franz Kafka's The Trial. Kafka's novel centers around a man who is arrested but not informed why. He desperately tries to find out what triggered his arrest and what's in store for him. He finds out that a mysterious court system has a dossier on him and is investigating him, but he's unable to learn much more. The Trial depicts a bureaucracy with inscrutable purposes that uses people's information to make important decisions about them, yet denies the people the ability to participate in how their information is used.

The problems portrayed by the Kafkaesque metaphor are of a different sort than the problems caused by surveillance. They often do not result in inhibition. Instead they are problems of information processing—the storage, use, or analysis of data—rather than of information collection. They affect the power relationships between people and the institutions of the modern state. They not only frustrate the individual by creating a sense of helplessness and powerlessness, but also affect social structure by altering the kind of relationships people have with the institutions that make important decisions about their lives.