India Likely To Force Facebook, WhatsApp To Comply With 'Traceability' Demand (techcrunch.com) 19
New Delhi is inching closer to recommending regulations that would require social media companies and instant messaging app providers to help law enforcement agencies identify users who have posted content -- or sent messages -- it deems questionable, TechCrunch reported Wednesday, citing people familiar with the matter. From the report: India will submit the suggested change to the local intermediary liability rules to the nation's apex court later this month. The suggested change, the conditions of which may be altered before it is finalized, currently says that law enforcement agencies will have to produce a court order before exercising such requests, sources who have been briefed on the matter said. But regardless, asking companies to comply with such a requirement would be "devastating" for international social media companies, a New Delhi-based policy advocate told TechCrunch on the condition of anonymity. WhatsApp executives have insisted in the past that they would have to compromise end-to-end encryption of every user to meet such a demand -- a move they are willing to fight over.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Piss off loser.
Time to cut India off the Internet.....
Re:LET'S STOP ALLOWING ANONYMITY @ INTERNET!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, look, it's IMHO-Derp...
Can you imagine the stymied, choked, chilled type of speech if all of online were real-names? It'd be.. it'd be like Nextdoor, or Facetwat. Totally useless. NO one ever says what they truly mean when their real name is attached. The fear of reprisal is real.
You gotta be some kinda shill for the government. You have to be. The way you constantly bang this anti-privacy drum basically screams "I am all for centralized control of everything!"
Just how much are you paid for each of your posts, IMHO-Derp?
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, look, it's IMHO-Derp...
Can you imagine the stymied, choked, chilled type of speech if all of online were real-names? It'd be.. it'd be like Nextdoor, or Facetwat. Totally useless. NO one ever says what they truly mean when their real name is attached. The fear of reprisal is real.
You gotta be some kinda shill for the government. You have to be. The way you constantly bang this anti-privacy drum basically screams "I am all for centralized control of everything!"
Just how much are you paid for each of your posts, IMHO-Derp?
This kind of attitude circles back to the old axiom we were told as kids, "This is why we can't have nice things". If folks were civil in their discourse and not be an Internet Fuckwad [penny-arcade.com], there might not be a need for this kind of crap legislation...
Re:LET'S STOP ALLOWING ANONYMITY @ INTERNET!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
I much doubt this is because shit online behavior, such as what you see in /. daily. This is about finding out who said nasty things about Dear Leader, this is about who is thinking ungood thoughts. One might think it's also a way to stifle dissenting speech.
If it's being sold as a national security thing, then that's just sugar to make it go down easier.
Our own Revolutionary War luminaries were fond of pseudonyms:
Sam Adams = Candidus, Populus,
Alexander Hamilton = Publius, Americanus
Ben Franklin = Silence Dogood, Richard Saunders
James Madison = Helvidius
There can be no free exchange of thought without *some* degree of anonymity (you listening eds? )
Re: (Score:2)
I much doubt this is because shit online behavior, such as what you see in /. daily. This is about finding out who said nasty things about Dear Leader, this is about who is thinking ungood thoughts. One might think it's also a way to stifle dissenting speech.
If it's being sold as a national security thing, then that's just sugar to make it go down easier.
Our own Revolutionary War luminaries were fond of pseudonyms:
Sam Adams = Candidus, Populus,
Alexander Hamilton = Publius, Americanus
Ben Franklin = Silence Dogood, Richard Saunders
James Madison = Helvidius
There can be no free exchange of thought without *some* degree of anonymity (you listening eds? )
I see your point and a very good one at that. Thanks.
Re:LET'S STOP ALLOWING ANONYMITY @ INTERNET!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all well and good if someone who for example posts a call to burn mosques can be found and duly punished. It's something else if someone who posts a well-reasoned critique of islam (or of Trump or climate deniers or whatever) is called into his manager's office because his employer got numerous calls and emails about an employee who spreads hate and islamophobia. Killing anonymity has nothing to do with uncivil discourse, but with controversial opinions. If you cannot be anonymous, it will be very hard to publicly voice such an opinion.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you imagine the stymied, choked, chilled type of speech if all of online were real-names?
It would be like Slashdot without Anonymous Coward.
Re: (Score:1)
Slashdot has banned the Anonymous Coward®
You have to log in to post, even "anonymously". Now everything is tracked
Re: (Score:2)
Now everything is tracked
Of course. How else will they assign you a social credit score [wikipedia.org] for your posts?
Re:LET'S STOP ALLOWING ANONYMITY @ INTERNET!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
IMHO, allowing anonymity (anybody easily hiding their identity/activity), is the root cause of all problems in the internet, like ransomware/malware/hackers & bullying/harassment/exploitation/manipulation & illegal activities & harmful content etc!!!
IMHO, if we really want to save future of humanity, then we need to stop allowing anonymity in the whole internet!!!
But, what about privacy U ask??? IMHO, general public is NOT obsessed w/ privacy @ all, quite unlike what self-appointed "privacy advocates" (like ACLU & EFF etc) always claim/pretend!!!
IMHO, you're a fucking hypocrite, FB36.
Humans were greedy devious liars well before the internet came along, so drop that bullshit argument already. You're sure as hell not going to eradicate electronic crime by removing anonymity which is what you assume.
Big deal? (Score:2, Insightful)
But regardless, asking companies to comply with such a requirement would be "devastating" for international social media companies
Why? Such legislation already exists in many Western countries: social media have to disclose the identity of anonymous or pseudonymous posters, or at least provide things like IP or email addresses associated with the account. That goes for online posts as well as messages. How would this affect end-to-end encryption? Encryption prevents governments from sniffing out messages it deems "questionable", but if they come across an unencrypted message (on a seized phone, for instance), they can already ide
Re: (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
India can ask for the same telco support as the US "brands" give the NSA, FBI, DEA... 24/7...
Why cant the gov of India not get the same telco/social media/network support in India as the US gov gets in the USA?
India can have its own laws... like any nation?
Their nation, their laws... "would have to comply with the GPL" vs a gov decryption request... just like in the USA when the NSA asks
Want to make the
Re: (Score:2)
Who created the key? Whatsapp did when you added a contact or started a conversation (assuming its not a single key for everyone that Facebook already owns).
When Whatsapp created the key, could they silently send it to FB HQ? Of course they could, trivially easily too.
Could FB then use the key they created in the app to inspect all messages sent via their servers and, sya, mine them for keywords to advertise with? Again, trivially easily.
There is no security if you let someone else lock your stuff up for yo
Re: (Score:1)
Why do governments keep missing this fucking point??
You are focusing on the wrong point. The state/corp is selling a product called popular fascism and things like censorship, where the people themselves demand that everybody conform. Saves having to maintain a large army for domestic pacification.