Cloud Hosting

As it did in March, the British government is again trying to lay the blame on encryption in the wake of the terrorist attack in Manchester. This time, social media is also in its sights.

In March, the hue and cry was sparked by ridiculous stories in sections of the media that the attack had begun after the attacker had sent a message on WhatsApp. Given that WhatsApp has end-to-end encryption, the reasoning (?) was that encryption was to blame for the attacks.

Much in the same way that your mobile provider is to blame for that spam call that led to you losing a few dollars last week.

But this time, the shouts are even louder, with British Home Secretary Amber Rudd leading the way, blaming social media sites like Facebook and Twitter for not doing enough to prevent messages advocating terrorism on their sites.

At the time of the March attack, Rudd had said that WhatsApp should open its encryption to security services.

It may sit well with the average person, but in reality such a call is stupid. WhatsApp encrypts the message at one end and it is decrypted at the receiver's end. Nobody can intervene and find out the content of the message.

To do that, Facebook would have to build a backdoor into WhatsApp, and give Rudd and any others carte blanche to examine the messages sent by all and sundry.

Would that prevent terror attacks or prevent would-be terrorists from communicating? Hardly. But the British government is threatening to bring in laws to force companies to provide access to encrypted services on request.

One must not forget that Rudd's party, the Conservative Party, is in the midst of an election campaign. Prime Minister Theresa May is attempting to win office on her own steam well before the difficult negotiations over Britain's exit from the European Union get under way.

The Tories are, no doubt, hoping that this kind of tough talk will play well with those who voted for Brexit. This was the logic that made May claim that a second attack was imminent after the Manchester attack - which, as anybody who knows anything about terrorism will tell you, is highly unlikely.

After what a terrorist would deem a successful strike, the perpetrators are content to wait until the fallout has died down before striking again.

Common sense is the biggest loser in situations of this kind. May brought in a set of laws known as the Snooper's Charter last year which is draconian enough. Tighter laws will only make it more difficult for law-abiding people and probably annoy them no end.

But in a this kind of milieu, politicians always feel they have to do "something", no matter whether it makes sense or not. Quite often they end up doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for different results.

Read more here:
Social media, encryption had nothing to with UK attack - iTWire