We often connect the banishment of programs, social networks, and sites with developing countries headed by autocratic regimes. Chat programs, which enable users to speak via smartphone over the web as opposed to through a carrier network as with SMS, have become the most recent goal.

The reasoning behind censoring chat programs is usually tied to security; then it becomes much more difficult for them to perpetrate offenses if offenders can not securely communicate with each other.
In November 2015, Bangladesh prohibited the employment of Viber, WhatsApp, and Facebook on “security reasons.”

But it isn’t only developing countries like Bangladesh latching onto this tendency. Encryption is now a subject of discussion among presidential nominees in america and politicians, also, ensuing in a tugboat-o-war between Washington and Silicon Valley technology firms that fight in favour of their users’ civil liberties.

Encryption permits just the sender and intended receiver to read the messages, when it’s about chat programs. Even should a government has those kinds of resources, it police and can not perhaps decode every message being sent back and forth between all users economically.

Facebook Messenger WhatsApp, Viber, and iMessage are one of the various messaging programs that encrypt messages between users.

Security is the largest argument against chat program encryption now, but it isn’t the only one. After the Bangladesh prohibition, Brazil instated a 48-hour shutdown of WhatsApp, the most famous chat program in the nation. The injunction arrived as an outcome of company interests. Cellular carriers in the nation complained that users favored WhatsApp over conventional SMS text messaging, which cut in their income. The legal strategy did not work. Instead of resorting to SMS, Brazilians flocked to Telegram, a WhatsApp competition. Cellular carriers have repeated the shout from Brazilian telecom firms worldwide, though the -thinking among them have chosen to contain chat programs that were popular within their subscription plans.

Subsequently, obviously, there is outright censorship. In Vietnam and China, for instance, Western social networks have for ages been blocked from public view as ways to smother dissent and safeguard the official story. China has the most robust censorship system on the planet, called the Great Firewall, which blocks Facebook Messenger WhatsApp, and Line, among many others. Encrypted chat programs enable citizens to speak instantly and free of government oversight, which endangers the ruling party’s power as well as order. WeChat, China’s most famous chat program, isn’t encrypted. It’s so heavily monitored and often censored by authorities.

In the aforementioned cases, users can circumvent prohibitions with VPN applications and proxies. Virtual private network, or a VPN, hides accurate place while also encrypting all web traffic and a user’s IP address, making everything the user does online efficiently anonymous.

With economics, security, and censorship chat programs that may be considered private are beset on all sides. They do, nevertheless, have a wellspring of power to fight back against antiquated Telco’s oppressive regimes, and fear mongering politicians: their users. The most famous chat program on the planet, WhatsApp, boasts 800 million users globally.

Whether chat programs are prohibited or give into pressure needing back door access for law enforcement is dependent upon the excitement (and apathy) of their users. The companies behind these programs must raise support and awareness about the danger to privacy posed by even well intentioned government hindrance should they want to exist within their present form.