WhatsApp is the biggest chat platform in the world, yet it has to constantly fight for its place in the limelight. Currently, for example, in Great Britain, where it is threatened with a real ban due to the rejection of the upcoming law on Internet security.
In Great Britain, they are preparing a law on Internet security, which is supposed to be beneficial for users of all platforms, but, like everything, it is somewhat controversial. His point is to hold individual platforms accountable for the content and actions that somehow spread through them, such as child sexual abuse among others. But everything here comes down to end-to-end encryption, where the upcoming law directly violates WhatsApp.
Gallery
By law, networks are supposed to monitor and remove any such content, but due to the meaning of end-to-end encryption, this is not possible, as even the operator cannot see the encrypted conversation. Will Cathcart, that is, the director of WhatsApp, after all, stated that he would rather not have WhatsApp available in the country at all than not to have the appropriate security, i.e. the aforementioned end-to-end encryption.
You could be interested in
Since the law also provides for fines for operators, it would cost WhatsApp (respectively Metu) a lot of money to stand up and not comply, namely up to 4% of the company's annual income. The bill is due to be passed in the summer, so until then the platform still has room to lobby for the bill to be rejected, as well as address its encryption and figure out a way to provide adequate security but not violate the planned law.
As is customary, other states are often inspired by similar laws. It is not excluded that the whole of Europe would like to enact something similar, which would mean clear problems not only for WhatsApp, but also for all other communication platforms. In a sense, we shouldn't like it either, because without encryption, anyone can look into our conversations, including law enforcement, of course.
But that's stupid. This is the same as if car manufacturers are responsible for all accidents on the roads...
And what if I spread illegal content in an encrypted 7zip (including file names) by e-mail or by any other unsecured method...? Even then, is the operator to blame? Someone is not using their head... But they are right - let's cancel online communication and replace it with f2f, it will be better.
And ban the mail, because it doesn't open and read letters, except for exceptions...