There was a lot of buzz last week over reported plans by Facebook (FB) to insert a backdoor in WhatsApp, including a post by the highly respected Bruce Schneier. Schneier's post was based on a Forbes article which (after reporting the plans) was updated on 2nd August to reflect Facebook's statement on the reports.
This is the update: Facebook disagrees that the F8 video on using artificial intelligence to keep content safe indicates it is planning to surveil users' information. In Facebook's words, "We haven't added a backdoor to WhatsApp," said WhatsApp vice president Will Cathcart in a post on HackerNews. "To be crystal clear, we have not done this, have zero plans to do so, and if we ever did it would be quite obvious and detectable that we had done it. We understand the serious concerns this type of approach would raise which is why we are opposed to it," Cathcart wrote.
The encryption debate is typically framed around the concept of an impenetrable link connecting two services whose communications the government wishes to monitor. The reality is that the security of that encryption link is separate from the security of the devices it connects. The ability of encryption to shield a user's communications rests upon the assumption that the sender and recipient's devices are themselves secure, with the encrypted channel the only weak point.
After all, if either user's device is compromised, unbreakable encryption is of little relevance. This is why surveillance operations typically focus on compromising end devices, bypassing the encryption debate entirely. If a user's cleartext keystrokes and ..
Support the originator by clicking the read the rest link below.
