Second, government officials are still interested in having access to personal data, whether it is for safety or criminal defense.įor now, the responsibility of being end-to-end encrypted falls with the providers of messaging apps and the consumers opting to use those services. Having no specific checklist leaves many corporations skirting the line of what's allowed, exploiting loopholes. They only impose a general rule, which is open for interpretation. First, current privacy regulations don't implement exact methods for protecting personal data.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like end-to-end encryption would be incorporated into privacy regulations anytime soon for a number of reasons. End-to-end encryption could still be applied, and authorities could use other methods to fight crime. When the criminal is detained and their device is confiscated, the authorities could gain access to the encrypted communications that way, as well. The truth is, stripping the privacy of other users won't stop criminals from doing illegal acts - it may even encourage them to do more.īy signing up with an email address, I acknowledge that I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.Ĭrime could still be prevented even with end-to-end encrypted messages, as the victim could consensually share communication directly with the authorities. Criminal organizations could even create a messaging app of their own. The communication for a terror attack in London was handled through drafts in a shared email account. Messaging apps are not intended to serve criminals, but the latter would always find ways and means to leverage technology to support their illegal activities. Therefore, having end-to-end encryption by default in communications platforms, in fact, offers users another layer of protection from cyberattacks like identity theft, fraud and stalking. If the data isn't accessible at all, the risk of any sort of breach is removed entirely. Hackers and rogue players are continually improving their abilities to breach personal data and exploit it by either selling it into the wrong hands or using it for fraud and other criminal activity.

Non-encrypted platforms may have the perception that giving the government access to users' personal data would help track and prevent crime, yet it could also potentially give criminals access to the same information. Less democratic governments could mimic these regulations, resulting in individual freedoms being diminished and human rights ignored.

However, if an app allows access to all its data, that opens it up for everyone else to access as well. This is why some governments oppose end-to-end encryption and have put pressure on communications platforms to avoid it for surveillance and security purposes. One of the major arguments against encryption has been from law enforcement agencies saying it keeps them from tracking criminal activity. Although the regulations have immensely improved the protection of user data from being collected and shared, there are still cracks within the laws that are beginning to show. It is purely up to the messaging platforms if they chose to implement it. IT is an important and essential attribute, so when privacy regulations, such as the Philippines' own Data Privacy Act of 2012 and the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, began popping up across the globe, why didn't messaging apps start making end-to-end encryption the default?Įvery territory's privacy regulation has nuances that fit within its own culture, but one common thread throughout all of them is that the laws didn't obligate the use of end-to-end encryption in messaging. Read this in The Manila Times digital edition.

Is viber encrypted end to end