1200
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Aceticon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, those were the "good old days" before the openning of the Internet to the broader public when most protocols were all naive and innocent, with zero security consciousness, and SMTP servers didn't even require a username:password pair from clients to send e-mails with specific From fields.

Mind you, it's still possible to connect to most SMTP servers using the unencrypted protocol - as it sits on a different port than the stuff using TLS so can be enabled alongside the encrypted protocols - though it's highly inadvisable to use the plain text protocols (the reason for which, by the way, goes back to my point about how IP can route packets through who-knows-were, so unencrypted stuff - most dangerously your password to access your e-mail - can be more easilly eavesdroped), but at least even the non-encrypted stuff nowadays requires a username and password.

As for your "point" about local law well, if you live in a coubtry next to those guys faxes will not go via there, ever, e-mails might very well go via there and end up in the modern equivalent of those tapes. Interestingly enough on this, when Snowden revelatiosn came out it was discovered that the UK surveillance apparatus (which is way more abusive than even the US) was eavesdropping on their side of the submarine cables that crossed the Atlantic from their coast and thus managed to eavesdrop on a significant proportion of the internet communications to and from all of Europe.

[-] uis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

if you live in a coubtry next to those guys

What if I live in country WITH those guys? Using phone is less safe(as in police knocking down your door) than sending unencrypted email.

If you live next to those guys, you will be surprised how insecure phone networks are.

most dangerously your password to access your e-mail

Are we talking about client-server or server-server?

[-] Aceticon@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Do you genuinelly think a surveillance society would refrain from watching people's Internet use but not refrain from doing so for their phone landlines?!

Because that makes no sense at all, especially considering that in earlier days it was actually easier to record Internet usage (less data and already in digital format) than phone lines, though nowadays data storage, processing power and even speech-to-text engines make eavesdropping on phone lines easier.

In fact even supposedly Democratic nations have been caugh doing mass surveillance of people's Internet use (that's what the Snowden revelations were all about) - because there were no clear laws on that - all the while phone line surveillance does have clear laws, dating from way back, that require a Court Mandate for it to be lawfully done: it was and is legally easier to do mass surveilance on the Internet even in supposedly Rule Of Law Democratic nations that phone line surveillance.

[-] uis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Both of course, but landlines are low hanging fruit.

this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
1200 points (100.0% liked)

memes

10677 readers
2481 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS