Surveillance of Terror-Linked Encrypted Messages Should Be Judiciary-Regulated

In an interview in the Sunday Times, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson attacked internet giants, accusing them of “not acting when they are tipped off”, while Home Secretary Amber Rudd, writing in the Sunday Telegraph, said companies needed to be more “proactive”.

Ms Rudd said on Sunday that there must be “no place for terrorists to hide”, following reports that the Westminster attacker Masood was on chat platform WhatsApp before his deadly assault on the streets surrounding Parliament.

There are doubts about whether that action was related to the atrocity.

WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger and iMessage are among the services which use this process by default, whereas others such as Telegram and Google Allo make it optional.

What has this got to do with encryption?

Without the key, the messages would appear as a jumble of undecipherable characters. Even the company itself can not decrypt the messages. End-to-end encryption prevents tech companies from eavesdropping on communications.

But her call for access was branded “draconian” by one former Metropolitan Police deputy assistant commissioner.

By utilising hacking techniques, authorities can already get around encryption to see what’s being sent and received on a specific device.

“We are horrified by the attack carried out in London and are cooperating with law enforcement as they continue their investigations”, said spokesperson Lena Pietsch in a statement. Because WhatsApp has end-to-end encryption, law enforcement officials are unable to know what, if anything, he communicated using the app. “As much as they provide a safe space for terrorists to communicate, they also help keep activists, journalists, and members of the general public safe from surveillance and government prosecution”.

It is not exactly clear.

WhatsApp and other similar services “cannot get away with saying ‘we are a different situation, ‘ they are not”, according to Rudd, who has reportedly invited reps from popular messaging services to a March 30 meeting. Any sufficiently capable group could gain access to the encrypted information – which could pose a far bigger inconvenience to security services than not having sweeping access to WhatsApp messages.

As controversy swirled over the encrypted messages, police made another arrest in Birmingham, England, where Masood had lived.

So, even if there was a way to retrospectively unencrypt the chats, it is unclear how this would work without significant changes to its systems. Lord Brian Paddick said: “The real question is, could lives have been saved in London last week if end-to-end encryption had been banned?”

As well as stopping hackers and criminals, encryption also means that security services can not access crucial data which may have been shared in chats.

Why might technology companies resist?

“Not oppressive regimes. Not even us”.

But she stressed it was her desire to persuade internet and social media companies to cooperate voluntarily with the government on this and also the posting of extremist material online.

As a effect, public trust in their software might be undermined.

TechUK deputy CEO Antony Walker agreed, stating: “Encryption technologies are a fundamental tool for ensuring the United Kingdom remains cyber-secure”.

“These responses are kneejerk reactions by those who have little understanding of the efficacy and implications of what they’re actually proposing”. She was aghast that terrorists could talk to each other in such a secure manner.

Businesses rely on encryption through VPNs, on file stores, for messaging and many other applications.