Discussion: Whatsapp End to End Encryption Repercussions for Seized mobile phones

[LondonTeacher]

Dear All,

What are your thoughts? The latest whatsapp update now includes end to end encryption.

What will that mean to police seizing mobile phones in the future?

Do you think people will stop using text messages and solely use whatsapp due to the encryption of messages?


Will the police be able to download whatsapp messages under this new update?

The following information is on Whatsapp website:

Privacy and security is in our DNA, which is why we have end-to-end encryption in the latest versions of our app. When end-to-end encrypted, your messages, photos, videos, voice messages, documents, and calls are secured from falling into the wrong hands.
End-to-end encryption is available when you and the people you message are on the latest versions of WhatsApp.
WhatsApp's end-to-end encryption ensures only you and the person you're communicating with can read what is sent, and nobody in between, not even WhatsApp. Your messages are secured with a lock, and only the recipient and you have the special key needed to unlock and read your message. For added protection, every message you send has a unique lock and key. All of this happens automatically: no need to turn on settings or set up special secret chats to secure your messages.
Important: End-to-end encryption is always activated, provided all parties are using the latest version of WhatsApp. There is no way to turn off end-to-end encryption.


Join the debate every one xxxxx

[Rights Fighter]

Not sure what you mean by "Privacy and security is in our DNA". DNA doesn't contain stuff like that as far as I know! People are born (in my view)to be open and honest. We learn to doubt as we grow due to our various experiences.

Not everybody uses WhatsApp so I doubt this would apply globally.

[LondonTeacher]

Thank you RF

Thanks for your reply Right's Fighter. God bless you

[wakingnightmare]

I don't actually see what difference it will make. I sent a What App today where I was told the message was encrypted but I believe that refers only to the transmission of the message the recipient didn't need to do anything different to receive or read it.

The police retrieve the messages of the phone not whilst they're being sent so like I said I don't see what difference it will make.

The police already ask for account passwords which you've no choice but to give them. The only way this would have any impact is making deleted messages unretrievable perhaps. Going through phone messages is a gross invasion of privacy not just of the accused but of everyone they've messaged. Police justify as they're looking for evidence - innocent person wouldn't have a problem with them doing this. Quite what thy expect to find on a mobile in historical cases where there has been no contact with the FA for many years is anyone's guess 😡

[LondonTeacher]

Thanks for your response WNM

Walking nightmare,

Thanks for your response. I agree with you 100%. I don't think the encryption will make much of a difference.

It's indeed a gross invasion of privacy when your phone is thoroughly investigated by the police.

As it relates to retrieving deleted messages, I think that only apply to SMS. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Once you delete whatsapp messages, I don't think they can be forensically retrieved.

In Adam Johnson's case, he deleted the whatsapp messages between him and the 15 year old girl. The police couldn't retrieve the messages from his phone. However, the 15 year old didn't delete her whatsapp messages that he sent her and the police retrieved them all- hence him being convicted when all his whatsapp messages was read out in court.

Snapchat messages between users normally automatically delete after a few seconds and messages sent via snap chat can't be forensically retrieved either. I think the same applies to Facebook messages.

I am aware that the police can recover deleted SMS messages though (normal SMS sent between users)

If I'm wrong, please correct me xx

[Rights Fighter]

It's indeed a gross invasion of privacy when your phone is thoroughly investigated by the police.

Would you say that if you or somebody you loved had been a victim of a very serious crime, and the police needed to investigate the person who had committed that crime?

[LondonTeacher]

RF, I had to laugh

RF, you're spot on. I think if close relatives and friends were victims of crime, then I would look at it differently.

If feels different when you're completely innocent and falsely accused and to have your phone interrogated by the police. Although this may prove your innocence, it's a bit too much for strangers to know every intricate details of your life and your modus operandi.


But you do have a point RF, if my sister was a victim of crime and there's evidence on the suspect's phone, I would be the first one calling for it to be seized by the police.

I can't have it both ways RF xx

[wakingnightmare]

Didn't know that about what's app I assumed they could retrieve deleted messages.

I also assumed that was how they'd got Johnston especially as they made reference to fact he messaged the girl & his partner within seconds.

[wakingnightmare]

Would you say that if you or somebody you loved had been a victim of a very serious crime, and the police needed to investigate the person who had committed that crime?

It's invading my privacy as someone who has simply been in contact with someone accused.

If messages were mentioned in a case & crucial to evidence timeline eg Adam Johnston then so be it but cases from 20+ years ago then no. I'm sorry but I can't see the relevance

Equipment not taken in personal situation so I'm getting on my soapbox for no reason lol

[LondonTeacher]

Walking nightmare,
I think it's difficult retrieving deleted messages from third party apps such as whatsapp, snap chat and KIK.

The developers of those apps may have their own privacy laws and rules etc
Once again, I'm not 100% sure

[Franticwithworry]

Yes, it's an invasion of privacy, but it's an invasion of privacy to turn up on your doorstep with a search warrant and the authority to go through your underwear drawer and laundry basket with a fine tooth comb if they want.

It's a matter of perspective really. I'd have been thrilled if they could have gone through our phones and computers there and then and drawn the conclusion that the allegations that had been made were malicious and ill-founded. I wanted to be able to prove, instantly, that far from us causing the problems, we were in fact the victims. If that took them going through my phone, I had no problem with it. Unfortunately, it wasn't enough.

Unfortunately, privacy has gone as soon as the allegation has been made.

[Rights Fighter]

I can fully understand why they would want to look at phone with internet access. People who do have a sexual interest in children may well have something of interest on their phones, even if the allegation stretches back decades, the interest may still well be there.

[LondonTeacher]

Walking nightmare, this is a quote from a newspaper:

Ms Blackwell QC has asked why Johnson only revealed in the witness box that he had to arrive at the Stadium of Light by 6pm after the alleged sexual encounter or that he would be fined if he was late.

“I didn’t say everything I should have in the interview,” Johnson said.

“It was only after you were convinced that there was no evidence with the prosecution to confirm a time you were driving that you decided to say this,” Ms Blackwell QC said.

Johnson claims the meeting between the pair must have ended at 5.35pm in order for him to make it to the Stadium of Light in time for the player’s bus.

However, messages from the teenager to her friends show that Johnson drove away at 6.08pm, the prosecution claims.

At that same moment Johnson responded to pleading messages from his girlfriend, Ms Blackwell tells the court.

She suggests this shows the player’s encounter with the girl didn’t end until after 6pm.

The court heard the teenager Johnson texted the girl to say: “Wasn’t bad was it?” at 6.12pm.

The teenager responded “texting and driving eesh,” which the prosecution says proves that he didn’t leave until after 6pm.




xx end of quote xx

The messages between Johnson and his girlfriend weren't deleted.
So the prosecution looked at the time stamp of the messages between Johnson and Stacey
And compared it to the timestamp of the messages the 15 year old sent to her friends

That's why, the prosecution could claim he was messaging his girlfriend and the 15 year old at the same time etc

[LondonTeacher]

Franticwithworry, I was told to attend the police station for a chat.

My mobile phone was immediately seized and whilst I was in custody, officers were sent to my house to search and confiscate items of interest. I gladly handed over my house keys.

I was in custody when they searched my flat.
I wasn't present.

All privacy is now out the door since the allegation.

[wakingnightmare]

I can fully understand why they would want to look at phone with internet access. People who do have a sexual interest in children may well have something of interest on their phones, even if the allegation stretches back decades, the interest may still well be there.

Confused then RF as it is smart phone & it is child abuse.

Anyone would think the police make it up as they go along