Signal CEO: We “1,000% won’t participate” in UK law to weaken encryption

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
44,389
Reputation
7,364
Daps
134,391

The UK's Safety Online Bill would require Signal to police user messages.​

DAN GOODIN - 2/24/2023, 6:48 PM

signal-800x534.jpg



The nonprofit responsible for the Signal messenger app is prepared to exit the UK if the country requires providers of encrypted communications to alter their products to ensure user messages are free of material that’s harmful to children.

“We would absolutely exit any country if the choice were between remaining in the country and undermining the strict privacy promises we make to the people who rely on us,” Signal CEO Meredith Whittaker told Ars. “The UK is no exception.”

Whittaker’s comments came as the UK Parliament is in the process of drafting legislation known as the Online Safety Bill. The bill, introduced by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, is a sweeping piece of legislation that requires virtually any provider of user-generated content to block child sexual abuse material, often abbreviated as CSAM or CSA. Providers must also ensure that any legal content that can be accessed by minors—including self-harm topics—is age appropriate.

E2EE in the crosshairs​


Provisions in the bill specifically take aim at end-to-end encryption, which is a form of encryption that allows only the senders and recipients of a message to access the human-readable form of the content. Typically abbreviated as E2EE, it uses a mechanism that prevents even the service provider from decrypting encrypted messages. Robust E2EE that’s enabled by default is Signal’s top selling point to its more than 100 million users. Other services offering E2EE include Apple iMessages, WhatsApp, Telegram, and Meta's Messenger, although not all of them provide it by default.

Under one provision of the Online Safety Bill, service providers are barred from providing information that’s “encrypted such that it is not possible for [UK telecommunications regulator] Ofcom to understand it, or produces a document which is encrypted such that it is not possible for Ofcom to understand the information it contains,” and when the intention is to prevent the British watchdog agency from understanding such information.
An impact assessment drafted by the UK’s Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport explicitly says that E2EE is within the scope of the legislation. One section of the assessment states:

The Government is supportive of strong encryption to protect user privacy, however, there are concerns that a move to end-to-end encrypted systems, when public safety issues are not taken into account, is eroding a number of existing online safety methodologies. This could have significant consequences for tech companies’ ability to tackle grooming, sharing of CSA material, and other harmful or illegal behaviours on their platforms. Companies will need to regularly assess the risk of harm on their services, including the risks around end-to-end encryption. They would also need to assess the risks ahead of any significant design changes such as a move to end-to-end encryption. Service providers will then need to take reasonably practicable steps to mitigate the risks they identify.

The bill doesn’t provide a specific way for providers of E2EE services to comply. Instead, it funds five organizations to develop “innovative ways in which sexually explicit images or videos of children can be detected and addressed within end-to-end encrypted environments, while ensuring user privacy is respected.”


A wide array of technologists and privacy and civil liberties advocates have long criticized such proposals on the grounds that the same innovative methods allowing providers or government regulators to police E2EE content can be exploited by government spies or criminal hackers. In 2021, Apple backed away from plans to scan images stored on iPhones for CSAM. The reversal occurred following a torrent of criticism from customers, advocacy groups, and researchers.

With the UK Parliament poised to pass the Online Safety Bill, Signal is going on record to say it will walk away rather than make any changes to its current E2EE method, which auditors and security experts say is among the most secure in the world.

“Signal will never, would never, 1,000 percent won’t participate, in any sort of adulteration of our technology that would undermine our privacy promises,” Whittaker said in a phone interview on Friday. “The mechanisms available and the laws of physics and reality of technology are the approaches that have been tried are deeply flawed both from a human rights standpoint and from a technological standpoint.”

While the precise means of monitoring E2EE content aren’t spelled out in the UK legislation, mechanisms proposed in similar frameworks in the past typically fall into two categories. The first is implementing a mechanism that allows for a decryption key to be stored in escrow that’s available only to law enforcement or regulatory bodies. Such an arrangement, of course, completely nullifies E2EE because, by definition, E2EE prevents anyone other than the conversation participants from decrypting messages. Technologists further note that any key that’s available to law enforcement is also vulnerable to hacks that defeat the escrow mechanism and provide unauthorized access. Critics further argue that governments often abuse their authority.

A second method that’s often proposed for policing E2EE communications is to scan content on an end user device before encryption takes place. This arrangement is what Apple was planning in 2021 before backtracking. The reason it’s so unpopular is that it subjects user devices to extremely broad monitoring through means that are currently undefined. As is the case with key escrows, on-device monitoring is subject to hacks that allow spies, criminals, or malicious insiders to gain unauthorized access to users’ content.

Whittaker said the Online Safety Bill doesn’t take the risks into account. She said:

It is a very troubling piece of legislation. The proactive requirement for services such as Signal to police expression and content would effectively require some form of surveillance capabilities and some sort of rubric around which expression is accepted or not. What they’ve done is to say this is the outcome we want but leaves it to the innovators, the technologists, to figure out how to do this.

The outcome they want presupposes mass surveillance capabilities, presupposes a regime that polices acceptable vs. unacceptable expression, and it presupposes either breaking into the E2EE in ways that would totally undermine privacy or undermine the point of E2EE by conducting surveillance outside of encryption itself.

UK government officials weren’t available for comment on late Friday, but in a statement provided to the Guardian, a spokesperson for the Home Office defended the bill.“The online safety bill does not represent a ban on end-to-end encryption but makes clear that technological changes should not be implemented in a way that diminishes public safety—especially the safety of children online. It is not a choice between privacy or child safety—we can and we must have both.”

It’s unclear what Signal exiting the UK would look like. Apple and Google could block Signal downloads to UK-based IP addresses at Signal’s request, but it’s almost certain some UK residents would work around such restrictions.
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
44,389
Reputation
7,364
Daps
134,391

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
44,389
Reputation
7,364
Daps
134,391
I remember years ago when there was article after article about governments and LEO complaining about skype because they couldn't intercept it's messages then microsoft came thru with a bunch of cash and acquired the company. they proceeded to centralized the skype architecture since skype worked via p2p unless users changed the setting and it no longer had decentralized functionality. the articles about skype being an issue for governments disappeared, but now end-to-end encryption is being offered on mainstream open source apps which can't simply be bought out.
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
44,389
Reputation
7,364
Daps
134,391

Swirv

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Messages
16,476
Reputation
2,727
Daps
51,546
UK citizens don’t really seem to have a say in their government from what I’ve learned. EE2E is only thing stopping big brother from totally consuming society.
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
44,389
Reputation
7,364
Daps
134,391

Thursday July 20, 2023 5:10 am PDT by Hartley Charlton

Apple says it will pull services including FaceTime and iMessage in the UK if plans to amend surveillance legislation that would require tech companies to make major security and privacy changes go ahead (via BBC News).

apple regent street hires

The UK government is planning to update the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA), which came into effect in 2016. The Act of Parliament allows the British Home Office to force technology companies to disable security features like end-to-end encryption without telling the public. The IPA also enables storage of internet browsing records and authorises the bulk collection of personal data in the UK. Due to the secrecy surrounding these demands, little is known about how many have been issued and complied with.

Currently, this process involves independent oversight via a review process and tech companies can appeal before having to comply. Under the proposed update to the IPA, disabling security features without informing the public would have to be immediate.

The UK government started an eight-week consultation process on the proposed amendments to the IPA open to professional bodies, interest groups, academia, and the wider public. Apple has submitted a nine-page-long document condemning many of the changes.

The company opposes the requirement to inform the Home Office of any changes to product security features before they are released, the requirement for non-UK-based companies to comply with changes that would affect their product globally, and having to take action immediately if a request to disable or block a feature is received from the Home Office without review or an appeals process.

Apple also highlighted that some requested feature changes would require a software update, so could not be implemented without public knowledge. The proposals "constitute a serious and direct threat to data security and information privacy" that would affect people outside the UK, Apple claims.

The company added that it would not make changes to security features specifically for one country that would weaken a product for all users, suggesting that services like ‌FaceTime‌ and iMessage will simply be removed in the UK if the amendments proceed.

Apple, WhatsApp, and Signal also oppose a clause in the UK's proposed Online Safety Bill that would allow its communications regulator to require companies to install technology to scan for CSAM in encrypted messaging apps and other services. Signal has threatened to leave the UK over the matter.

Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
44,389
Reputation
7,364
Daps
134,391


The U.K. Government Is Very Close To Eroding Encryption Worldwide​


BY JOE MULLIN

JULY 26, 2023

defend-encryption-cyan-1_0.png



The U.K. Parliament is pushing ahead with a sprawling internet regulation bill that will, among other things, undermine the privacy of people around the world. The Online Safety Bill, now at the final stage before passage in the House of Lords, gives the British government the ability to force backdoors into messaging services, which will destroy end-to-end encryption. No amendments have been accepted that would mitigate the bill’s most dangerous elements.

TAKE ACTION

TELL THE U.K. PARLIAMENT: DON'T BREAK ENCRYPTION


If it passes, the Online Safety Bill will be a huge step backwards for global privacy, and democracy itself. Requiring government-approved software in peoples’ messaging services is an awful precedent. If the Online Safety Bill becomes British law, the damage it causes won’t stop at the borders of the U.K.

The sprawling bill, which originated in a white paper on “online harms” that’s now more than four years old, would be the most wide-ranging internet regulation ever passed. At EFF, we’ve been clearly speaking about its disastrous effects for more than a year now.

It would require content filtering, as well as age checks to access erotic content. The bill also requires detailed reports about online activity to be sent to the government. Here, we’re discussing just one fatally flawed aspect of OSB—how it will break encryption.

An Obvious Threat To Human Rights


It’s a basic human right to have a private conversation. To have those rights realized in the digital world, the best technology we have is end-to-end encryption. And it’s utterly incompatible with the government-approved message-scanning technology required in the Online Safety Bill.

This is because of something that EFF has been saying for years—there is no backdoor to encryption that only gets used by the “good guys.” Undermining encryption, whether by banning it, pressuring companies away from it, or requiring client side scanning, will be a boon to bad actors and authoritarian states.

The U.K. government wants to grant itself the right to scan every message online for content related to child abuse or terrorism—and says it will still, somehow, magically, protect peoples’ privacy. That’s simply impossible. U.K. civil society groups have condemned the bill, as have technical experts and human rights groups around the world.

The companies that provide encrypted messaging—such as WhatsApp, Signal, and the UK-based Element—have also explained the bill’s danger. In an open letter published in April, they explained that OSB “could break end-to-end encryption, opening the door to routine, general and indiscriminate surveillance of personal messages of friends, family members, employees, executives, journalists, human rights activists and even politicians themselves.” Apple joined this group in June, stating publicly that the bill threatens encryption and “could put U.K. citizens at greater risk.”

U.K. Government Says: Nerd Harder


In response to this outpouring of resistance, the U.K. government’s response has been to wave its hands and deny reality. In a response letter to the House of Lords seen by EFF, the U.K.’s Minister for Culture, Media and Sport simply re-hashes an imaginary world in which messages can be scanned while user privacy is maintained. “We have seen companies develop such solutions for platforms with end-to-end encryption before,” the letter states, a reference to client-side scanning. “Ofcom should be able to require” the use of such technologies, and where “off-the-shelf solutions” are not available, “it is right that the Government has led the way in exploring these technologies.”

The letter refers to the Safety Tech Challenge Fund, a program in which the U.K. gave small grants to companies to develop software that would allegedly protect user privacy while scanning files. But of course, they couldn’t square the circle. The grant winners’ descriptions of their own prototypes clearly describe different forms of client-side scanning, in which user files are scoped out with AI before they’re allowed to be sent in an encrypted channel.

The Minister completes his response on encryption by writing:

We expect the industry to use its extensive expertise and resources to innovate and build robust solutions for individual platforms/services that ensure both privacy and child safety by preventing child abuse content from being freely shared on public and private channels.

This is just repeating a fallacy that we’ve heard for years: that if tech companies can’t create a backdoor that magically defends users, they must simply “nerd harder.”

British Lawmakers Still Can And Should Protect Our Privacy​


U.K. lawmakers still have a chance to stop their nation from taking this shameful leap forward towards mass surveillance. End-to-end encryption was not fully considered and voted on during either committee or report stage in the House of Lords. The Lords can still add a simple amendment that would protect private messaging, and specify that end-to-end encryption won’t be weakened or removed.

Earlier this month, EFF joined U.K. civil society groups and sent a briefing explaining our position to the House of Lords. The briefing explains the encryption-related problems with the current bill, and proposes the adoption of an amendment that will protect end-to-end encryption. If such an amendment is not adopted, those who pay the price will be “human rights defenders and journalists who rely on private messaging to do their jobs in hostile environments; and … those who depend on privacy to be able to express themselves freely, like LGBTQ+ people.”

It’s a remarkable failure that the House of Lords has not even taken up a serious debate over protecting encryption and privacy, despite ample time to review every every section of the bill.

TAKE ACTION

TELL THE U.K. PARLIAMENT: PROTECT ENCRYPTION
—AND OUR PRIVACY

Finally, Parliament should reject this bill because universal scanning and surveillance is abhorrent to their own constituents. It is not what the British people want. A recent survey of U.K. citizens showed that 83% wanted the highest level of security and privacy available on messaging apps like Signal, WhatsApp, and Element.

Documents related to the U.K. Online Safety Bill:

 

ExodusNirvana

Change is inevitable...
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
40,179
Reputation
8,979
Daps
147,126
Reppin
Brooklyn, NY
I been using Signal for a few years now and most of my friends are on it right now since only a few are using iPhones.

It's better then Hangouts was before Google assed it up, and its better then WhatsApp.
 
Top