As is public several weeks ago, the fight between the United States Department of Justice and Apple for access to a locked iPhone is far from resolved, however it seems that the FBI discussion doors in the will be his new target in the crusade to access private data. WhatsApp
the instant messaging application, owned by Facebook, open another battlefront for the Obama administration on the issue of the dispute over the encryption keeping with Silicon Valley, or what is the same, with security and individual privacy.
According WhatsApp, in the last year encryption calls and chats that are transmitted via the Internet was added, so it would not be possible to access any private conversation by the company, even after receiving a judicial order.
An article in the New York Times reveals that researchers Justice Department evaluate how to follow with a criminal investigation in which a federal judge has already approved surveillance (or listening to a “line”), but where it is impossible to advance the encryption of WhatsApp. While there were no official statements from any of the two parties, it transpired that this would be a case would not be on a terrorist action.
To understand what the consequences would be, the sources cited by the US daily say researchers see data encryption WhatsApp even as a bigger problem than the one presented from locked iPhone one of those responsible Crossfire San Bernardino, because it goes to the heart of the surveillance and espionage users.
in fact, they say that should force WhatsApp to cooperate by providing the information that has been encrypted, while from the legislature senators they are already talking about introducing legislation to provide the government with information that can be read.
“The FBI and the Justice Department are elgiendo the right to get into fights that make them look better circumstances,” said Peter Eckersley, one of the visible faces of Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non profit organization specializing in the study of digital rights. “They expect a case to make their reasonable demands to public opinion”.
As was also known, this month Facebook executive was arrested by Brazilian justice not to provide data that were requested on alleged WhatsApp conversation in a drug trafficking case. “WhatsApp can not give information that does not have” was the final statement of the company.
shoot himself in the foot
“The problem is that the move public policy would be against Whatsapp is the same as against Apple: to enter a chat you have to create a vulnerability that would allow you to access all the chats you want, when you want, “explains Javier Pallero, the Cordovan specialist working for Acces Now, another international NGO focused on expanding digital rights.
a clue that this could happen? “When the US government allowed the FBI used the spy technology Internet traffic NSA, was justified by saying that it would apply only in specific cases of spying extrajeros. Well, last week we learned that being also using for federal crimes. for example, copyright infringement is a federal crime in almost everyone, “said Pallero.
While from Access Now there is concern suponene will not be many changes because the legal system serves that legislation is wide, and the continued application of the law that protects the collection of data NSA. “Also, change all root mean that digital media we use today, Internet-based vulnerable ‘factory’. The only encryption effective is one that can not be decrypted. If digital businesses open those doors, the data also would be exposed to digital crimes, “he says.
the clearest example is the tendency to citizenship and digital signature in which the various national states (in Argentina and Córdoba particularly well) work. For the specialist, encryption of these systems is similar to using WhatsApp and Telegram, and it is not hard to imagine what would happen if the safety of these coprometida out that way.
“The problem is that at the level overall, there are politicians who would rather shoot himself in the foot to solve a health problem. the analogy is about how far you can curtail a right to ensure other. If the damage from the solution is greater than the problem, not should be done. Technical and legally, we believe that this would lead to worse consequences than what it wants to attack. ”
No comments:
Post a Comment