Chronic. What should Signal do if extremists use its platform to spread hate messages or organize violent action? The debate agitates, internally, the teams of this encrypted messaging, according to an investigation by journalist Casey Newton, from the The Verge. The question is not only theoretical: Telegram, which offers an encrypted messaging and public forums, has, in recent weeks, been invested in the United States by militants of the extreme right. For some at Signal, the platform only provides a tool for private communication and does not have to worry about its use. For others, do not try to fight against “Bad actors” risks attracting political wrath against the core functionality of these services: end-to-end encryption, which makes it impossible for third parties to read messages, including the platform itself.
The debate around encryption is not new. But it is reinforced by the vogue of private messaging. Signal and Telegram have gained users after the banning of violent groups from public social networks like Facebook and Twitter, and the controversy over changing the terms of use of WhatsApp encrypted messaging, a subsidiary of Facebook. More broadly, Mark Zuckerberg’s company announced, in early 2019, that it would eventually extend encryption to Messenger and Instagram messengers.
The political pressure is nagging: officials are demanding a moderation of encrypted content and, above all, to be able to read the messages for investigative purposes. “Competent authorities must have legal and targeted access to data, while respecting fundamental rights and privacy laws”, in December advocated a Council of Europe resolution, similar to the European Commission’s message in its anti-terrorism agenda. At the end of 2019, three ministers from the United States, Britain and Australia asked Zuckerberg to drop the extension of encryption or “Give law enforcement officials legal access to content”. Previously, WhatsApp had been accused of spreading calls for violence in India and Brazil. And in 2015, Apple was ordered to order “Decipher” the contents of the San Bernardino massacre suspect’s iPhone. In vain.
Law and pragmatism
The problem is that it is not technically possible to reserve the reading of encrypted content to the courts or the police. “Access by a backdoor [“porte dérobée”] that you demand for law enforcement would be a gift to criminals, hackers and repressive regimes, as it would give them a way into our system and make all of our users more vulnerable ”, pleaded WhatsApp officials in response to Anglo-Saxon ministers. A position supported by all NGOs defending freedoms. In the name of the principle of the right to private correspondence. But also for pragmatic reasons: weakening the encryption would be harmful for dissident users but also business leaders, politicians, etc.
You have 24.05% of this article left to read. The rest is for subscribers only.
–
