Signal CEO Warns of Swedish Exit if Backdoor Legislation Passes
Signal, the encrypted messaging app, has announced it may cease operations in Sweden if proposed legislation requiring message storage is enacted. The Swedish government is considering a bill that would mandate apps like Signal and WhatsApp to store user messages, allowing law enforcement agencies to access message histories of individuals suspected of crimes. Signal's CEO, Meredith Whittaker, expressed strong opposition to this proposal, stating that implementing such measures would necessitate introducing vulnerabilities, or "backdoors," into their software. Whittaker emphasized that complying with these requirements would compromise the security of Signal's global network, making it susceptible to exploitation. Consequently, Signal would prefer to withdraw from the Swedish market rather than undermine its encryption standards.
This is not the first time a decision made by a Government has opted to protect the Country over users' privacy. In the United Kingdom, the government has demanded that Apple create a backdoor to its encrypted cloud services, challenging the company's commitment to user privacy. The Home Office issued a "technical capability notice" under the Investigatory Powers Act, requiring companies to assist law enforcement by providing access to encrypted data. In response, Apple has expressed concerns and hinted it might withdraw critical features from the UK market rather than compromise its encryption standards. Similarly, during the Trump administration in the United States, there were calls for legislation that would weaken encryption, including proposals like client-side scanning or "special access," which faced opposition from civil society organizations and cybersecurity experts.
The Swedish Armed Forces have also raised concerns about the proposed legislation. In a communication to the government, they cautioned that implementing such measures could introduce vulnerabilities exploitable by third parties, potentially compromising national security. This stance aligns with Signal's perspective, underscoring the broader implications of weakening encryption protocols.
The bill is slated for potential passage next year. As the debate continues, it highlights the ongoing tension between governmental surveillance efforts and the preservation of individual privacy rights. Signal's potential departure from Sweden serves as a significant example of the lengths to which privacy-focused organizations are willing to go to protect user data.
Source: The Sweeden Herald
Advertisement
Ugly times calls for ugly measures.
Sweden is not just the scandinavian capitol of murder, shootings and bombings per capita by far, it tops that list for the whole of the EU, following years of highhorsing moralizing and making it a crime to report the ethnicity of criminals in statistics. Much like germany is still reeling from years of Merkel’s “wir schaffen das”.
They are really in need to take away the secrecy that these criminals are using to organize and communicate.
If Signal and and the others refuse to cooperate on that point, then they should get out before they are sued for complicity / contempt of court / aiding and abetting.
Fascists may love authoritarian measures but I still believe democracies ought to act as such.
Since when is democracy equal to the rights of the nefarious to remain anonymous?
Democracy is about one person, one vote. The right to representation. It’s never been about the rights of the Epstein’s of this world to go about acting as they please.
The internet has vastly increased the means with which criminals can communicate and organise. This is a threat to the safety of people living in democracies. Policing the internet to protect people from this threat is no less democratic than policing the streets. You wouldn’t expect police to turn a blind eye to paedophilia if it were happening in plain sight down an alleyway, would you? I hope not. Blanket beliefs that privacy, to do whatever anyone wants with that privacy, is the equivalent to expecting police to turn that blind eye.
This is not about the prevention of any opposing thought to a dominant regime. It’s about democratic countries doing their democratic duty: protecting their voters.
Too often it’s super easy to throw around FUD like “weaken encryption”, “backdoors” and “fascism”. Is the process of getting a search warrant for a building a “backdoor” that “weakens” everyone’s right to privacy in their home? No. It’s a checks and balances approach. The approach is far from infallible but it strikes a balance and there are accountability processes for when it goes wrong. Requiring networks to ensure – with strong checks and balances in place – suspected nefarious use of their platform is available as evidence to prosecute criminals, is the same as requiring any building in a democratic society be subject to search warrants.
Instead, everyone carries on as if adding a key for use by a checks and balances process is the equivalent to fudging the maths of the encryption scrambling algorithm itself.
Just imagine a close friend or relative is being held hostage on the Epstein island; or has been locked into a shipping container and is half way across an ocean to who knows where. The smugglers are known to be using an app that detectives cannot access because it would be ‘fascist’ to do so.
Absolute codswallop.
Just imagine an authoritarian government snooping on and harassing its dissidents with no reasonable doubt or checks on these abuses. This is not just theoretical any more.