614
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 224 points 2 months ago

The US Govt 5 years ago: e2e encryption is for terrorists. The govt should have backdoors.

The US Govt now: Oh fuck, our back door got breached, everyone quick use e2e encryption asap!

[-] Agent641@lemmy.world 76 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The Australian government tried to straight up ban encryption some years ago.

[-] dan@upvote.au 45 points 2 months ago

I laughed so much at that. Encryption is literally just long complicated numbers combined with other long complicated numbers using mathematical formulae. You can't ban maths.

If I remember correctly, there's also a law in Australia where they can force tech companies to introduce backdoors in their systems and encryption algorithms, and the company must not tell anyone about it. AFAIK they haven't tried to actually use that power yet, but it made the (already relatively stagnant) tech market in Australia even worse. Working in tech is the main reason I left Australia for the USA - there's just so many more opportunities and significantly higher paying jobs for software developers in Silicon Valley.

[-] cupcakezealot 14 points 2 months ago

You can’t ban maths.

tell me about it; it tried that against my teacher in middle school

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 months ago

More like 23 years ago when the Patriot Act was signed, and every time it has been re-authorized/renamed since. Every President since Bush Jr. is complicit, and I'm getting most of them in the previous 70-ish years (or more) wish they could've had that bill as well.

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 177 points 2 months ago

Oh gee, forcing companies to leave backdoors for the government might compromise security, everyone. Who'd have thunk it? 🤦

[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 115 points 2 months ago

It's probably also good practice to assume that not all encrypted apps are created equal, too. Google's RCS messaging, for example, says "end-to-end encrypted", which sounds like it would be a direct and equal competitor to something like Signal. But Google regularly makes money off of your personal data. It does not behoove a company like Google to protect your data.

Start assuming every corporation is evil. At worst you lose some time getting educated on options.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 38 points 2 months ago

End to end is end to end. Its either "the devices sign the messages with keys that never leave the the device so no 3rd party can ever compromise them" or it's not.

Signal is a more trustworthy org, but google isn't going to fuck around with this service to make money. They make their money off you by keeping you in the google ecosystem and data harvesting elsewhere.

[-] EvilBit@lemmy.world 52 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

google isn't going to fuck around with this service to make money

Your honor, I would like to submit Exhibit A, Google Chrome “Enhanced Privacy”.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/09/how-turn-googles-privacy-sandbox-ad-tracking-and-why-you-should

Google will absolutely fuck with anything that makes them money.

[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 28 points 2 months ago

This. Distrust in corporations is healthy regardless of what they claim.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[-] sem 18 points 2 months ago

It could be end to end encrypted and safe on the network, but if Google is in charge of the device, what's to say they're not reading the message after it's unencrypted? To be fair this would compromise signal or any other app on Android as well

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Signal doesn't harvest, use, sell meta data, Google may do that.
E2E encryption doesn't protect from that.
Signal is orders of magnitude more trustworthy than Google in that regard.

[-] renzev@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

There's also Session, a fork of Signal which claims that their decentralised protocol makes it impossible/very difficult for them to harvest metadata, even if they wanted to.Tho I personally can't vouch for how accurate their claims are.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] cupcakezealot 88 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

until the republicans ban them so they can find queer kids and pregnant people getting healthcare and people reading books

[-] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 37 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

All that happens under Dems, too. Stop giving them a pass.

Y’all keep hitting that downvote button. I’d like to know how many of you are ok with fascism when it’s a Dem at the helm.

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 45 points 2 months ago

Yup. The Apple-FBI encryption dispute started under Obama, as did the Snowden leak.

Neither party is particularly pro-encryption, because governments in general see encryption by the public a hurdle for their operations (i.e. you don't need encryption if you have nothing to hide).

Encryption isn't a partisan issue, and my understanding is that both major parties suck about equally on this issue.

[-] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago

It’s a wonder they’re not also trying to outlaw printing presses at this point. They openly believe that we are not entitled to private conversations.

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 months ago

It seems we're moving that direction. Physical media in video games is becoming less and less common, more and more stores are digital only (and Google made a deal w/ Mastercard to get that data), and ebooks are likely to overtake physical books in the near-ish future.

Guess where all that data ends up? The government can just pay retailers to get transaction data, so if the police wants to dig up dirt on you, it's easier than ever.

That's pretty messed up IMO, and I'm not happy with this trend given where privacy protections are at these days...

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Eezyville@sh.itjust.works 23 points 2 months ago

The Snowden leaks came out when Obama was president. Obama was the one who said, "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide". The republicans and democrats are the same fucking people.

[-] MJKee9@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago

Only if you look at it in the most general, limited, pov. Are they the same people on corporate greed? Not all, but mostly yes. Are they the same people on encryption? Yes. Are they the same on human rights? Absolutely fucking not. If the only thing important for you is encryption, voting isn't going to change the government's policy decisions. However, if things other than encryption and corporate greed are important, then voting for a Republican is voting against your interests. History is filled with people who can't see past their own fucking biases and look out for the greater interest..... So you have a lot of historical company.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] prole 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

All that happens under Dems, too

Fucking what? Which democrats are banning books and putting together lists of trans children?

And no, I'm not a fan of the DNC, I'm just not a fucking dishonest piece of shit.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 2 months ago

A good advice: start learning how to self host, specially a matrix instance.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works 84 points 2 months ago
[-] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 23 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yes, like Signal!
Which does not only use end-to-end encryption for communication, but protects meta data as well:

Signal also uses our metadata encryption technology to protect intimate information about who is communicating with whom—we don’t know who is sending you messages, and we don’t have access to your address book or profile information. We believe that the inability to monetize encrypted data is one of the reasons that strong end-to-end encryption technology has not been widely deployed across the commercial tech industry.

Source: https://signal.org/blog/signal-is-expensive/

I haven't verified that claim investigating the source code, but I'm positive others have.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] walden@sub.wetshaving.social 66 points 2 months ago

Sounds bad I guess, but the USA has been spying on us for a long time now. Is the bad part that it's China?

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 58 points 2 months ago

Bets on this being directly related to back doors that US spy agencies demand be installed?

[-] treadful@lemmy.zip 37 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

RTFA

The third has been systems that telecommunications companies use in compliance with the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA), which allows law enforcement and intelligence agencies with court orders to track individuals’ communications. CALEA systems can include classified court orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which processes some U.S. intelligence court orders.

[-] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago

So, bet won?

[-] stinky@redlemmy.com 9 points 2 months ago

Wouldn't surprise me. "We're doing this to be helpful to you!" is actually moustached disney villain behavior.

^ similar to the prisoners with cats gimmick. "look how nice we're being to our prisoners" is actually "stop yelling at your bunkmate or we'll take away your cat"

[-] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 32 points 2 months ago

When a whole nation's communications are intercepted by another entity, yes, the bad part is that it's another nation. Especially an adversarial one.

This is not about individuals' personal privacy. It's about things that happen at a much larger scale. For example, leverage for political influence, or leaking of sensitive info that sometimes finds its way into unsecured channels. Mass surveillance is powerful.

[-] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 65 points 2 months ago

Everybodies aunt at thanksgiving:

"I should be fine. I only trust the facebook with my information. Oh, did I tell you? We have 33 more cousins we didn't know about. I found out on 23andme.com. All of them want to borrow money."

[-] obinice@lemmy.world 58 points 2 months ago

Real encrypted apps, ...or just the ones their own government can use to spy on them?

[-] Agent641@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago

In the voice of Nelson Muntz: "Nobody spies on our citizens but us!"

[-] Structure7528@lemm.ee 12 points 2 months ago

The reporter mentioned signal, though the gov spokespeople didn't seem to recommend any specific app

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 39 points 2 months ago

End-to-end encryption is indispensable. Our legislators (no matter where we live) need to be made to understand this next time they try to outlaw it.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago

“So it’s like a filter on the tubes?” - Our legislators

[-] pdxfed@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

"you wouldn't put a dump truck full of movies on a snowy road without chains on the tires would you?"

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 39 points 2 months ago

On January 20th: The cyberattack is coming from inside the house!

Dumbfuck and his cronies now have access to PRISM and ECHELON. Again.

[-] treadful@lemmy.zip 17 points 2 months ago

Guess that confirms that E2EE is effective against these backdoors.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] 2pt_perversion@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Hear me out, maybe we should update pots and sms to have optional end-to-end encryption for modern implementations as well...Optional as backwards compatible and clearly shown as unencrypted when used that way to be clear.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

There's been a lot of good research done lately on how to achieve trusted communication on untrusted platforms and over untrusted channels. Encryption is a big part of that.

And there are a number of scenarios where the ISP creates a hostile environment without having been compromised by an external actor. A malicious government, for example, or an ISP wanting to exploit customer communications for commercial reasons.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2024
614 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

61346 readers
3606 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS