[Northern Monkey]

The London terrorist sent a Whatsapp message just before the attack.Nobody knows what it was or who it was to.This could be vital to find the accomplices or organisers if there were any.Whatsapp is encrypted at both ends.Should there be a back door for security services for situations like this?

[Niamh.]

I think Whatsapp should allow them to access someones account if they're involved in a crime and it could be helpful but I don't think they should just be able to log into peoples accounts whenever they felt like it

[Withano]

If they have reason to do so, then yes

[Cherie]

there was a discussion about this when the FBI tried to access the phones of the people involved in a shooting in the US, lots of people didn't want it to happen, so it will be interesting to see if anyone changes their mind given Massood used WhatsApp minutes before he went on his rampage and it could be useful information or not

[user104658]

ONLY if the phone has been legally seized. However, as WhatsApp uses end-to-end encryption, I don't know if a deleted message can even be retrieved from the server. I would not advocate the removal of end-to-end encryption.

As always with these threads; nothing anyone can say is going to convince me that it is a good idea to sacrifice privacy by the boatload in exchange for "potential" security. Another terrorist attack that "might have been but probably wouldn't have been" prevented changes absolutely nothing.

If we start willfully handing away our freedom and privacy - just about the only thing that DOES make our countries better than others - then there is literally no ****ing point in any of it and we might as well push the nuke button now and be done with it.

[Tom4784]

If the police have possession of the phone and have evidence that it may contain vital information then yes, they should have access.

However, I'm completely against the access of private information as a precaution, pre-emptive measure or for any other reason other than the one listed above. Sacrificing our privacy and freedoms for a false sense of security is cowardly and an insult to the people who have died to protect our freedoms.

[y.winter]

Even if, WhatsApp can move their HQ and datacenters to a "state of refuge" - and then they owe nothing to the police/court. Something along the lines of Google being in Ireland do to avoid high tax rates.

[jaxie]

I think if the person has committed a crime, particularly mass murder then absolutely the police should have access to anything, phones, social media etc.

[thesheriff443]

If a man made a code another man will break that code in time, what they want is for it to be legal.
They can look at my cock its a lovely cock but it wont stop isis

[smudgie]

Only in cases where a serious crime has been committed.

[Ninastar]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I think Whatsapp should allow them to access someones account if they're involved in a crime and it could be helpful but I don't think they should just be able to log into peoples accounts whenever they felt like it

pretty much this

Although, I'm in favour of the FBI/CIA whoever, being able to access conversations held online where there is suspicious activity being said. I'm not sure whether the conversations will be held in another language, held using code words, or if its even said complete english... but if theres going to be mass attacks in places in the future (which seems pretty likely...) we should be able to be prepared as these things take a lot of planning and its inevitable that social media comes into the planning.

[Firewire]

As long as there's reason for it and in the case I think it warrants it.

I don't agree that everyone should be monitored for the sake of public protection, I think that's bull****.

[Jamie89]

I think protecting freedoms/privacy is one thing and protecting lives is another, and there has to be a balance. If the police wanted to look at my whatsapp messages because they suspected something I'd be fine with that, even though it's giving up my privacy to an extent, there could be a situation in the future where they view someone else's and they stop something that might save my life. It's not as though anyone and everyone would be able to view that kind of stuff, if it was just the police and any data was handled privately. And I think that's why we have the police, to keep us protected and to act as people we can trust, and as the world becomes more and more online, we need a police presence there just as much as we need police patrolling the streets, that's just the world now.

[jennyjuniper]

If they are on a suspected list, then yes. But it's a bit murky regarding in general.

[Tozzie]

serious criminals should be monitored to protect others.

[Jamie89]

Also just to add to my last post, thinking about it more I don't think it's really that different to stop and searching someone on the street, or searching someone's home. They're all invasions of privacy too but we accept them, so if more communication is happening online it makes sense there will be more invasions of privacy by the police online too. They're just following trends as to how crime is committed, that's to be expected right?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

Also just to add to my last post, thinking about it more I don't think it's really that different to stop and searching someone on the street, or searching someone's home. They're all invasions of privacy too but we accept them, so if more communication is happening online it makes sense there will be more invasions of privacy by the police online too. They're just following trends as to how crime is committed, that's to be expected right?

That's a good point Jamie

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

I think protecting freedoms/privacy is one thing and protecting lives is another, and there has to be a balance. If the police wanted to look at my whatsapp messages because they suspected something I'd be fine with that, even though it's giving up my privacy to an extent, there could be a situation in the future where they view someone else's and they stop something that might save my life. It's not as though anyone and everyone would be able to view that kind of stuff, if it was just the police and any data was handled privately. And I think that's why we have the police, to keep us protected and to act as people we can trust, and as the world becomes more and more online, we need a police presence there just as much as we need police patrolling the streets, that's just the world now.

It saddens and enrages me how people are so willing to throw their liberties and rights away for a false sense of security. No respect for the cost people have paid for those rights to exist.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It saddens and enrages me how people are so willing to throw their liberties and rights away for a false sense of security. No respect for the cost people have paid for those rights to exist.

I don't see it as giving up rights and freedoms that people have fought for though, if the police have reason to suspect something and they search your whatsapp or something else as a result, is it really that different to them getting a warrant to search your house, or searching someone on the street? It's just a different methods of doing the same thing? I'm not saying that the government should have full access to everything and spy on us without reason, so we'd still have the same privacy rights in that respect.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

I don't see it as giving up rights and freedoms that people have fought for though, if the police have reason to suspect something and they search your whatsapp or something else as a result, is it really that different to them getting a warrant to search your house, or searching someone on the street? It's just a different methods of doing the same thing? I'm not saying that the government should have full access to everything and spy on us without reason, so we'd still have the same privacy rights in that respect.

It's a slippery slope, you can't prevent crime without going into practices that can infringe on people's rights. You can only respond to it. It's something that would be open to abuse.

Private information like that should only be accessed in the example I provided in my original post.

[arista]

Yes in order to Stop Terrorism

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

The London terrorist sent a Whatsapp message just before the attack.Nobody knows what it was or who it was to.This could be vital to find the accomplices or organisers if there were any.Whatsapp is encrypted at both ends.Should there be a back door for security services for situations like this?

You can't have a back door to 'end to end encryption' if that were at all possible we wouldn't be able to do internet banking or have any real cyber security.

They don't know... they can't know if this terrorist sent a Whatsapp message. Rudd either thinks we are stupid or she's been watching too many episodes of 'Twenty Four'.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

You can't have a back door to 'end to end encryption' if that were at all possible we wouldn't be able to do internet banking or have any real cyber security.

They don't know... they can't know if this terrorist sent a Whatsapp message. Rudd either thinks we are stupid or she's been watching too many episodes of 'Twenty Four'.

If they have his phone which is highly likely, why wouldn't they know he sent a message on Whatsapp

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Cherie

If they have his phone which is highly likely, why wouldn't they know he sent a message on Whatsapp

Because looking at the phone itself wouldn't tell you. You would have to unlock access to his whatsapp. They will be able to see he has whatsapp and his phone history will show if he accessed whatsapp but his phone history won't show what he did.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It's a slippery slope, you can't prevent crime without going into practices that can infringe on people's rights. You can only respond to it. It's something that would be open to abuse.

Private information like that should only be accessed in the example I provided in my original post.

Security services and private individuals already hack people's accounts, I know someone that was working for a firm in South Africa they where probing a ten million pound robbery, two gun men came in and shot her and nine others she survived with another guy they now live here, most banks have a security system that's passes every fifteen minutes, she can hack into any account and leave no trace, she was offered a six figure some to work in the states, they have to take a lie detector test every six months.