So many words have been spent on online security issues linked to platforms that increasingly have information encryption systems; In a hot theme such as terrorism , WhatsApp itself has been targeted by many, guilty according to these, to help terrorists by not allowing governments to have free access to the information they exchange through the Instant Messaging Service. But if reality were the exact opposite?
March 22, 2017: Khalid Masood is the creator of the terrorist assassination killing five people and injuring another fifty to a few passes by the British Parliament; A few moments ago, Masood uses WhatsApp, but what he writes is inaccessible because of the end-to-end encryption implemented by the application. Rumor, many people ask Facebook to remove the security system of its messaging application and allow the police to access the messages: according to Sheryl Sandberg , Facebook’s chief operating officer, such a move would help the terrorists themselves.
The goal for governments is to get as much information as possible, and so when there are encrypted services like WhatsApp the message itself is encrypted but not the metadata . This means that when you send me a message we (understood as Facebook) do not know what the message says but we know you contacted me.
The goal for governments is to get as much information as possible, and so when there are message services like WhatsApp that are encrypted the message itself is encrypted but the metadata is not. Meaning that when you send me a message we don’t know what that message says but we know that you contacted me.
From these words the conclusion is simple: if people abandoned these encrypted services (because they no longer considered safe and “private”) in favor of other services that do not even make metadata accessible, then governments would also lose the little information they can To get it now. The terrorists, in fact, no longer protected by the encryption system, would stop using WhatsApp in favor of other services, and besides not knowing the content of the message, governments would not even know the existence of that message.
Facebook has long been working to try to curb extremism online; Sandberg himself stated that there are 4500 people working to counter terrorists who use the site, with many others arriving. Not only that, even artificial intelligence systems have come to the field to find “extreme” content before they are online.
It also plays a role in collaborating with other technology giants, so if a video has been identified as “extreme” by Facebook on one of its platforms, identification will also be for others and will prevent platform-to-platform switching.
What do you think about Sheryl Sandberg ‘s reasoning ? Do you think that encryption systems like the one implemented on WhatsApp work for common security?