Guy Asks Indian Supreme Court To Ban Encrypted WhatsApp... Because People Plan Raves With It

from the the-kids-these-days dept

Sudhir Yadav appears to be a bundle of contradictions. He claims to be a "right to information" activist, yet he's now trying to stomp out encryption. He argues that he's addicted to WhatsApp, but he wants the Indian Supreme Court to ban it. He's filed a "public interest" lawsuit with the Supreme Court arguing that (1) he's addicted to WhatsApp because of its recently implemented end-to-end encryption and (2) that it should be banned because bad people might use it to, you know, plans raves and stuff:

Yadav claimed that he has only filed the petition because recently introduced WhatsApp encryption makes it impossible for the government to intercept and read messages exchanged between “suspicious people”.

“I know WhatsApp is a great app and I spend hours on it but this is about you and me,” he said. “If we know that information on drugs and rave parties is going through WhatsApp and the government can’t decrypt these messages, then it’s harmful to the country.”

And, yes, he also tossed in the "fear! terrorists!" argument as well, because of course. And it's not just WhatsApp. He also wants a variety of other messaging platforms, such as Telegram, Hike and Viber, banned for using encryption (even though the implementations on many of those platforms is questionable). Of course, we don't need to go through all the reasons why this is dumb. Strong encryption is much more likely to help protect the private information of the general populace from people looking to do bad things with it than it is to help terrorists in their planning. Could terrorists use it? Yes, just as terrorists can use other neutral, but important technologies for bad purposes. But we don't go and ban them entirely just because they can be misused.

Meanwhile, Yadav is making this out like he's being selfless in being willing to give up his WhatsApp:

“I love WhatsApp but I will have to find an alternative if it’s banned," he said. "I don’t know if there is an app that good but I will keep looking.”

And what happens if SC decides that his petition doesn’t have enough merit? Yadav said that he will simply go back to using WhatsApp.

“I can’t do much if the SC thinks it’s not harmful for the nation’s interest. It’s not a personal issue, it’s a national issue so my usage won’t be affected.”

It's a national issue for you to try to undermine the safety and data protection of hundreds of millions of people? Really?

Filed Under: encryption, india, raves, sudhir yadav, terrorism
Companies: telegram, viber, whatsapp

California Politician Discovers That You Can't Ban Specific Type Of Music; Admits 'I Didn't Know What Was Going On'

from the no-pacifiers! dept

Sinan Unur points us to a story about California Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, who last year totally and completely overreacted to the news that a teenager died at a rave, by introducing legislation that tried to completely ban raves. After finding fierce opposition to the law (leading another politician to talk about the power of the "rave lobby"), Ma changed her legislation and somewhat candidly admits that she only learned after she introduced the bill that the government isn't allowed to ban types of music:

"We found out later on that, Constitutionally, you can not ban a type of music," said Ma. "Plus, I, like my opponents said, I didn't really know what was going on."

It's really quite incredible to see a politician admit such a thing. But seriously, if you're an elected official and you only learn later that (a) you can't ban a type of music and (b) that you were trying to legislate without knowing a damn thing about what you were legislating, perhaps it's time to find a more productive line of work. One that doesn't impact the lives of others.

Ma admits that she finally went to a rave herself, and it wasn't that bad. However, she still felt the need to "do something!!!!" and ended up getting a bizarre law passed in California that bans certain events on state property... but part of that is that it bans things that she saw at a rave, and assumes are associated with raves: gloves with lights on them, walking around with stuffed animals, and most bizarre: no pacifiers. You see her talk about this -- and she seems really proud of the pacifier bit -- at 4:20 in the video above. The statement there is so bizarre, and so out of touch, it's really funny. She gets all worked up about how a rave must be just like an old fashioned concert, in the most condescending tone possible. Here's the quote, but honestly, you have to see her say it to really do it justice:

"You can't wear gloves with lights. You can't walk around with stuffed animals. All the things with rave culture... the promoters have tried to break down, and make it more like a concert, where people go to a concert to enjoy themselves. And not have things that traditionally, in the past, are associated with raves. No pacifiers! Nobody was allowed to have... um... pacifiers in their mouths."

Of course, we can add this to the long line of ridiculous moral panics from clueless politicians. In the future, perhaps people will include Ma's ridiculous quotes, along with the warnings about the evils of the waltz:

The indecent foreign dance called the Waltz was introduced ... at the English Court on Friday last ... It is quite sufficient to cast one's eyes on the voluptuous intertwining of the limbs, and close compressure of the bodies ... to see that it is far indeed removed from the modest reserve which has hitherto been considered distinctive of English females. So long as this obscene display was confined to prostitutes and adulteresses, we did not think it deserving of notice; but now that it is ... forced on the respectable classes of society by the evil example of their superiors, we feel it a duty to warn every parent against exposing his daughter to so fatal a contagion.

And remember, no pacifiers!

Filed Under: fiona ma, moral panic, music, pacifiers, raves