Signal handles this by allowing the server to keep an (encrypted) list of all current users and devices. Hence, if a phone is lost, the content of Telegram’s Secret Chats is lost.įor the same reason such chats cannot be accessed from the web application. For this reason in our thread model we have to assume that both Signal and Telegram might be secretly backing up messages, even if in real life they are not. “Tech companies should be required to disrupt the abuse that is occurring at record levels on their platforms, including in private messaging and end-to-end encrypted environments,” said Anna Edmundson, the head of policy and public affairs at the NSPCC.Telegram claims that E2E encryption cannot be extended to group chats for backup reasons: to keep the highest level of security, messages from Secret Chats are not stored after delivery 5 5 5 This is good! However, as we will see when discussing the open sourceness of the projects, we have no way to verify what really happens on the server side. However, the child safety charity the NSPCC said tech platforms had a “responsibility” to invest in technology that tackles abuse online.

She added: “If encrypted services are required to comply with this mandate, they will have to compromise their systems and undermine the confidentiality of messages.” Tom Tugendhat, the security minister, said the SafeToWatch product from the company SafeToNet showed there are “ways to protect children online whilst maintaining privacy”.ĭr Monica Horten, a policy manager at the Open Rights Group, which campaigns for online privacy, said the online safety bill’s provisions “threaten a highly intrusive mandate for mass surveillance”. The Home Office also flagged a product developed by a UK cybersecurity company that draws upon a database of images compiled by monitoring organisation the Internet Watch Foundation in order to spot, and then block, illegal material before it is sent. It is not a choice between privacy or child safety – we can and we must have both.” “The online safety bill does not represent a ban on end-to-end encryption but makes clear that technological changes should not be implemented in a way that diminishes public safety – especially the safety of children online. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. For more information see our Privacy Policy. Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties.

“If the UK decides that it is OK for a government to get rid of encryption, there are governments all around the world that will do exactly the same thing, where liberal democracy is not as strong,” he said.Ī Home Office spokesperson said the online safety bill, which is due to become law this year, does not ban encryption. Will Cathcart, the head of WhatsApp, told the Financial Times last year that any UK move against encryption would have reverberations around the world. She added that technological “back doors” into encrypted services could be hijacked by “malignant state actors” and “create a way for criminals to access these systems”. Whittaker said such a system would turn everyone’s phone into a “mass surveillance device that phones home to tech corporations and governments and private entities”. In 2021 Apple was forced to pause its client-side scanning plans, which would have involved the company scanning user photos before they are uploaded to its image-sharing service. Whittaker also criticised a system called client-side scanning, where images are scanned before being encrypted. End-to-end encryption ensures that only the sender and recipient of a message can view its content. Signal, which has been downloaded more than 100m times on Google’s app store, is operated by a US-based nonprofit organisation and is widely used by activists and journalists, as well as some intelligence services. She said: “Encryption is either protecting everyone or it is broken for everyone.” Whittaker told the BBC it was “magical thinking” to believe there can be privacy “but only for the good guys”, adding that the bill was an example of this thinking. Privacy advocates warn the bill could force encrypted messaging services such as Signal, WhatsApp and Apple’s iMessage to monitor users’ messages and create vulnerabilities in their platforms that could be exploited by rogue actors and governments.

Signal messenger security