UK Home Secretary says "real people" don't care about end-to-end encryption

midian182

Posts: 9,662   +121
Staff member

The UK government isn’t a fan of encryption. This year’s terrorist attacks in London and Manchester led to renewed calls for backdoors in encrypted messaging services, which former Prime Minister David Cameron said he’d ban in 2015. Now, Home Secretary Amber Rudd has argued that “real people” don’t care about security features such as end-to-end encryption found in software like WhatsApp.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Rudd claims the UK government has no intention of banning encryption and won’t be asking firms to create back doors. But she does want tech companies to come up with “options” that will help security agencies with their surveillance of terrorists and criminals.

Rudd suggests that so-called “real people” don’t care about someone potentially reading their private messages, as long as the apps aren’t too complicated. "Real people often prefer ease of use and a multitude of features to perfect, unbreakable security,” she writes.

“Who uses WhatsApp because it is end-to-end encrypted, rather than because it is an incredibly user-friendly and cheap way of staying in touch with friends and family? Companies are constantly making trade-offs between security and 'usability', and it is here where our experts believe opportunities may lie.”

Back in March, Rudd called WhatsApp “a secret place for terrorists.” But even if the encrypted messaging services could offer a solution whereby agencies can eavesdrop on specific conversations, there’s nothing stopping criminals from switching to another app that doesn’t adhere to the UK government’s rules.

Assuming messaging apps agreed to such a system, which is unlikely, companies say that what Rudd is suggesting can’t be done. "I know some will argue that it's impossible to have both – that if a system is end-to-end encrypted then it's impossible ever to access the communication," she said. "That might be true in theory. But the reality is very different."

Unsurprisingly, Rudd’s statements have been slammed by digital rights organizations. “The suggestion that real people do not care about the security of their communications is dangerous and misleading," said Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group.

"Some people want privacy from corporations, abusive partners or employers. Others may be worried about confidential information, or be working in countries with a record of human rights abuses. It is not the Home Secretary’s place to tell the public that they do not need end-to-end encryption.”

Permalink to story.

 
Real people really don't care, it's a gimmick to their eyes, they don't understand it and they don't care for it, this is extremely real.
That this makes news in a technology forum, duh.
That it should be disabled? No way Jose. But it's true, they don't care about sending passwords in texts, most of them click on phishing emails, so on so forth, if anyone tells otherwise it's a blatant lie.
(Ok, one more time, just in case) That "real people" don't know what it is or how it works or if they even care that exists, is not a base to eliminate it.
 
Real people really don't care, it's a gimmick to their eyes, they don't understand it and they don't care for it, this is extremely real.
That this makes news in a technology forum, duh.
That it should be disabled? No way Jose. But it's true, they don't care about sending passwords in texts, most of them click on phishing emails, so on so forth, if anyone tells otherwise it's a blatant lie.
(Ok, one more time, just in case) That "real people" don't know what it is or how it works or if they even care that exists, is not a base to eliminate it.
I think 'real' people, or at least people I talk to, assume their data is encrypted, or an abstracted version of it where no one has real access to the data except them. They think the security of the software they use is as polished and reliable as the UI, because why wouldnt it be in their heads?
 
"real people", as in there is another kind?
what, is it real people vs AI or bots or some other kind of "people"?
are politicians becoming so messed up they don't know how to talk now?
use "most people" instead of using branding slang and empty wordings for crying out loud.

or wait.... can it be the government who NEED this stuff are basically aliens and the "real people" need not fret about encryption? :O
 
I think 'real' people, or at least people I talk to, assume their data is encrypted, or an abstracted version of it where no one has real access to the data except them. They think the security of the software they use is as polished and reliable as the UI, because why wouldnt it be in their heads?
Well up until recently, that abstracted version of it didn't even exist, they thought it did but it didn't really. So "real people" think something similar, they don't really know, they don't really care for it, again, those same guys think there is a nigerian prince who needs their help, or won a lottery they never played.

AGAIN, I'm not saying it's not needed, IT IS needed, just following on the initial point of the lady in this case, the "real people" or let's call them "Average user" really don't care.
 
Those 'real people' who run home businesses care, you will care, and the IRS will have no pity when your information leads to identity theft and loss of financial controls of your life.

IMO, this article is what happens when you pay correspondents by the word to write 'filler' articles - - mindless junk without foundation.
 
Apparently he's never had to cope with the after effects of identity fraud and the financial pain and suffering that come out of it ..... anyone care to hack his bank and investment accounts and share it with the world?
 
The UK,is basically becoming one of the most oppressive governments on the planet. (Or as I like to say, "Ceremonial Monarchy, my a**, it's a socially correct dictatorship).

We go back at few years, and the their courts managed to allow, "mixed tapes" to become illegal, at the behest of the recording industry.

By the fall of this year, it will no longer be legal in the UK for advertisers to use "gender stereotypes" in advertising. This is supposedly to insure that women don't feel that they have to fulfill a specific role in society, and go on to become plumbers and jackhammer operators, should they feel so inclined. Because after all, everyone know that no sensible woman would want to grow up to be a princess by marrying into royalty.

Using the same yardstick, they should force the queen to make her public appearances in a tuxedo, and Prince Chuck to "come out" in a ball gown.

Now they want all inclusive access to your private communications, for your own good.

Well kidz, the sun has long set on the "British Empire", and all that's left is a useless, fading, and flatulent piece of sh!t tyranny, still desperately trying to cling to absolute control over it's subjects, while also desperately seeking ever more picayune facets of people's lives to exercise that control upon. "In fear of a tyranny, which has absolute control over all, right down to the inconsequential", I'm sure that's how we all want to live
 
Last edited:
The UK,is basically becoming one of the most oppressive governments on the planet. (Or as I like to say, "Ceremonial Monarchy, my a**, it's a socially correct dictatorship).

We go back at few years, and the their courts managed to allow, "mixed tapes" to become illegal, at the behest of the recording industry.

By the fall of this year, it will no longer be legal in the UK for advertisers to use "gender stereotypes" in advertising. This is supposedly to insure that women don't feel that they have to fulfill a specific role in society, and go on to become plumbers and jackhammer operators, should they feel so inclined. Because after all, everyone know that no sensible woman would want to grow up to be a princess by marrying into royalty.

Using the same yardstick, they should force the queen to make her public appearances in a tuxedo, and Prince Chuck to "come out" in a ball gown.

Now they want all inclusive access to your private communications, for your own good.

Well kidz, the sun has long set on the "British Empire", and all that's left is a useless, fading, and flatulent piece of sh!t tyranny, still desperately trying to cling to absolute control over it's subjects, while also desperately seeking ever more picayune facets of people's lives to exercise that control upon. "In fear of a tyranny, which has absolute control over all, right down to the inconsequential", I'm sure that's how we all want to live

This.

They are turning into War time Nazi Germany and this time they don't have churchhill to save them.
 
It may be actually true. 'Real' people may not care about encryption. Real people didn't care about Y2K remediation, and after the event laughed about how much fuss had been made about it. But they would have had a different attitude if it hadn't been done. Real people don't care about encryption, because they don't understand it, and don't think they should have to worry about it. They expect that their communications will be secure, and they expect the providers will make it so.

As them 'do you care about encryption' and the answer will probably be no. Ask them 'do you care if others can see your private stuff with a minimum amount of effort' and you'll get a different answer.
 
Yeah, you have to explain it in terms that they will understand. I don't get how anyone expects that non IT people or non computer enthusiasts will understand what end to end encryption means. That same goes for any other field. You can't use job jargon and phrases and expect people who work in other areas to understand what you just said.
 
Real people don't post on Techspot. /s

But seriously, Brasil is going a similar path... They are passing laws that make posting material against political figures to be a crime... Our freedom of speech is slowly being turned into something else... We got a new corrupt government that's more corrupt then the last one, and can't do a thing... The world is becoming a grimmer place.
 
Encryption is for ‘Real People’
so says Cynthia M. Wong, Sr Researcher @ Internet & Human Rights
“Who uses WhatsApp because it is end-to-end encrypted, rather than because it is an incredibly user-friendly and cheap way of staying in touch with friends and family?”​
The answer is simple: I do, along with broad swaths of the human rights movement and many other people around the world.
see the rebuttal here
 
Encryption is for ‘Real People’
so says Cynthia M. Wong, Sr Researcher @ Internet & Human Rights
“Who uses WhatsApp because it is end-to-end encrypted, rather than because it is an incredibly user-friendly and cheap way of staying in touch with friends and family?”​
The answer is simple: I do, along with broad swaths of the human rights movement and many other people around the world.
see the rebuttal here

I'm not saying you aren't a 'real person', obviously you are, and the work of defending human rights is worthwhile to boot and needs doing and I'm glad encrypted tools exist to help you.

However, when they say 'Real People' they don't mean it in a literal sense, I.e. 'A person having physical existence', they mean something more along the lines of 'the average person' or 'the person in the street' or 'typical users'. You are not one of those, you have specialised needs. And I'm not saying even those people don't need encryption services, I'm just saying they don't care about them, and the distinction needs to be made and understood in the context of the UK Home Secretary's comment. They don't care about fire safety rules either (until something happens like the recent London disaster), but that doesn't mean they are not needed and can be removed.
 
.... they mean something more along the lines of 'the average person' or 'the person in the street' or 'typical users'. You are not one of those, you have specialised needs. And I'm not saying even those people don't need encryption services, I'm just saying they don't care about them, and the distinction needs to be made and understood in the context of the UK Home Secretary's comment. They don't care about fire safety rules either (until something happens like the recent London disaster), but that doesn't mean they are not needed and can be removed.
Hmm; Just like we're not supposed to use cellphone while driving, yet you see it all the time? Just like reading text messages and walking into traffic ( saw this in Milan, IT). Forrest Gump said Stupid is as stupid does.

The boundary between need and not care IMO, is when there's important information on the system - - not just games.
 
Back