It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WhatsApp accused of giving terrorists place to hide'-Won't hand over London attacker's messages

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Looks like internet firms are hiding evidence on the final message of terrorist Adrian Ajao. The claim is that the terrorists know that the security orgs can't read the encrypted communications using Whats app that is owned by facebook.


Amber Rudd has vowed to “call time” on internet firms who give terrorists “a place to hide” as it emerged security services are powerless to 
access Westminster attacker Adrian Ajao’s final WhatsApp message.

The Home Secretary said it was “completely unacceptable” that Whats App – which is owned by Facebook – was enabling terrorists to communicate “in secret”, knowing the police and security services will not be able to read their encrypted communications.


Ajao sent his final message using whatsapp, just 3 minutes before he did the deed on Wednesday. Scotland yard cannot access the message to further their investigation. They don't know who he was talking to or what was said. I don't know if I believe they can't read this.


Ajao, 52, sent a final message via WhatsApp – which enables users to send text messages and pictures over the internet – just three minutes before he began Wednesday’s slaughter.

But Scotland Yard and the security services cannot access what could be a vital clue in their investigation because WhatsApp uses so-called “end to end encryption” which the firm says prevents even its own technicians from reading people’s messages. Detectives cannot find out who Ajao was messaging, or what he said.
www.telegraph.co.uk...




posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

I'm not so sure I believe the NSA, CIA, GCHQ, etc. cant access them. Smells like BS to me.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal


I don't know if I believe they can't read this.

Me neither. Same thing happened here with Apple, right? The gubmnet pretends they don't have access, the company 'puts up a fight' to maintain illusion of privacy, then the announcement is made that a third party hacked it and... (bell toll) all is well.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

How many of the none ATS type people believe this?



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

You don't need Whatsapp to send secure communications. All you need is SSH. It's been around for over 20 years and open source code is available. With proper key management, it's basically impossible to hack without physical host access. It's not like this is a "new problem". Anyone with decent linux/unix skills can do end to end encryption. It is, however, very inconvenient for investigators sometimes.

Edit: And I'm sure Whatsapp can read what is coming down the line... But it really depends on how good their logging is to read it after the fact.
edit on 27-3-2017 by DrWily because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   
at this point there are so many contrasting viewpoints that it's hard to say for sure when any of this crap happens:
Are governments really not that "all knowing" as we tend to believe? maybe they can't read all our stuff
Or maybe this is an act they put up just to give us the illusion of privacy.

personally i tend to believe that the government does not have the reach it could have yet but WANTS it.
they will push companies into submission by using these types of situations until they have as much coverage as they possibly can manage



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: intrptr

How many of the none ATS type people believe this?

You mean the mass denial population who want to continue using apple (or any) products with 'guaranteed' privacy?

Wikis latest dump put that notion to bed, and yah, how many on Main street even heard about it?



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   
lol... right they cant read it...



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal
The encyption is end-to-end so can only be decrypted by the recipient. Only encrypted data passes through their servers. The encryption is good enough to stop the government decrpting it, apparently...

However, I find it strange that they knew he had sent a message but cant decrpyt it. Surely they have his phone and can just unlock it to read what he sent and to who?
edit on 27/3/2017 by EasyPleaseMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I'm of the mind Rudd needs a timeout.

As with all her ilk, if they get their way, it doesn't stop anything, if people are going to plot, they will find a way to plot.

This is just another example of an erosion of privacy, which won't necessarily negate of those who wish harm.

Yet with all privacy compromising schemes, it's great for spying on the average Joe.

What must be remembered about Adrian Elms is that he was already a violent screwed up individual before any mention of jihad, right now there is zero proof of a wider ranging collaboration and given that he has been on their radar in the past and discounted as a threat in this way just goes to demonstrate how ineffective all this surveillance really is.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   
The only reason they're saying this is because a newspaper journo found his number and put it in Whatsapp.
Whatsapp states when person was last online.

Tough # if you can't read a message do your fooking job plod and run down the leads.

If they have his phone they can turn it on and see the messages unless his phone was locked (which is easy enough to bypass).

People say why use encryption? If nothing to hide blah blah blah.

Why do you close the curtains in your house...? Think about it.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join