Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Privacy

Snapchat, Skype Put Users' 'Human Rights at Risk', Amnesty Int'l Reports (cbsnews.com) 47

Shanika Gunaratna, writing for CBS News: Snapchat and Skype are falling short in protecting users' privacy -- a failure that puts users' "human rights at risk," according to a report by the organization Amnesty International. Snapchat and Skype received dismal grades in a new set of rankings released by Amnesty that specifically evaluate how popular messaging apps use encryption to protect users' private communications. In the report, Amnesty is trying to elevate encryption as a human rights necessity, due to concerns that activists, opposition politicians and journalists in some countries could be put in grave danger if their communications on popular messaging apps were compromised. "Activists around the world rely on encryption to protect themselves from spying by authorities, and it is unacceptable for technology companies to expose them to danger by failing to adequately respond to the human rights risks," Sherif Elsayed-Ali, head of Amnesty's technology and human rights team, said in a statement. "The future of privacy and free speech online depends to a very large extent on whether tech companies provide services that protect our communications, or serve them up on a plate for prying eyes."Microsoft's Skype received 40 out of 100. WhatsApp fared at 73, and Apple scored 67 out of 100 for its iMessage and FaceTime apps. BlackBerry, Snapchat, and China's Tencent did 30 out of 100.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Snapchat, Skype Put Users' 'Human Rights at Risk', Amnesty Int'l Reports

Comments Filter:
  • Human rights? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @01:42PM (#53148381)

    You don't have any rights if you use a closed, proprietary communication system that reports directly to the US government.

  • Signal not mentioned (Score:5, Informative)

    by beckett ( 27524 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @01:49PM (#53148449) Homepage Journal
    Why didn't they compare the commercial offerings with Signal?

    It's GPLv3, offers encrypted messaging and voice calls, and when served with a subpoena, Open Whisper Systems was only able to provide a confirmation of a user's account, and the last time they had logged in.
    • Very few people use Signal here, in Brazil (I can't understand why: I imagine is a publicity problem...)
  • by MitchDev ( 2526834 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @01:56PM (#53148493)

    ...aren't Snapchat and Skype free?

    Access to encryption is a right, but good software costs money, and is not a "right".

  • by rsmith-mac ( 639075 ) on Tuesday October 25, 2016 @01:58PM (#53148521)

    I feel like Amnesty International has failed to put these various services in context.

    Skype makes no claims that it is an anti-government service. It is subject to and complies with Lawful Intercept in the US and other countries. You should not treat it any differently than the local telco, because that's all Skype is trying to be.

    • While I would very much like to see improvements in the security of these services; it's also worth remembering that the 'alternative' is usually either POTS or cellular, provided by the local monopoly and/or cozy-cooperator-with-the-state.

      That doesn't diminsh the fact that, when doing communications software on a global scale, something that counts as 'eh, bug' in silicon valley may involve a one-way trip to the basement of the interior ministry for a bunch of users somewhere; but secure communications
    • That's a straw-man. Amnesty International's is not arguing that these services should be anti-government, just that they come with basic precautions to ensure that communications that are meant to be private are actually private.

      To put it as a car-analogy, I think Amnesty envisions (end-to-end) encryption in messaging being standard, a bit like safety belts are standard in a car.

  • only 10% of Tor users are journalists, human rights activists, etc. A bit more than half use it to hide illegal activities.

    (Yes, TFA is about messaging, but the whole "we must save encryption to protect the downtrodden" meme is just bogus.)

    • only 10% of Tor users are journalists, human rights activists, etc. A bit more than half use it to hide illegal activities.

      (Yes, TFA is about messaging, but the whole "we must save encryption to protect the downtrodden" meme is just bogus.)

      You got it backwards. To make your point about bogus, you should look at the percentage of journalists, human rights activists, etc. being Tor users, not the other way round.

  • "activists, opposition politicians and journalists in some countries could be put in grave danger if their communications on popular messaging apps were compromised."

    It would help if the communications were not funnelled through Skype headquarters in north America and the encryption keys only resided on the client devices.
  • So use that fact if your in the press. Plant lots of fiction based on your past reporting to bait or misdirect the nations tasked with illegal domestic collect it all.
    If the brand was part of PRISM and was happy to decrypt for the US gov over the years keep mentioning that for free.
    PRISM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    If you write on political issues, fill your messages with stories about contacts, news from new whistleblowers, about new emerging and past political intrigues.
    Part of the tech media?
  • politicians and journalists in some countries could be put in grave danger if their communications on popular messaging apps were compromised.

    Skype was good enough for the CIA to be discussing top-secret operations in real time when they were filming Homeland, so it ought to be secure enough for anybody.

Ummm, well, OK. The network's the network, the computer's the computer. Sorry for the confusion. -- Sun Microsystems

Working...