224
FBI warns users to encrypt text messages for cybersecurity. Here's how to do it (www.usatoday.com)
submitted 1 month ago by weirdbeardgame@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
45 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] karashta@lemm.ee 75 points 1 month ago

Showed this information to my boomer mother who then asked my also tech illiterate step father what he thought.

"We don't send sensitive information through texts."

The ignorance almost physically hurts.. Thinking that only the actual message content is important.

Or ignoring the pictures we send and the private things I talk about with my mom.

Do I think that specifically my information would be useful to China? Likely not. But I also have no idea what all is possible with that kind of information in the aggregate.

At the very least, I assume they will use it to manipulate us even more with disinformation.

[-] JaddedFauceet@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

But I also have no idea what all is possible with that kind of information in the aggregate

so does your mom and the general public. This idea and its impact is far too remote to people's day to day life.

  • "Yes, they can collect all they want, why should I care?"
  • "My data is too insignificant to be meaningful for anyone, LMAO, do you think I am some kind of a CEO?"

it may help to try coming out with a story or incident that they can relate to. then again most of the time these stories will sound like a conspiracy theory,

[-] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 month ago

I'm so exhausted at people who answer like this.

It makes me feel crazy.

[-] renegadespork@lemmy.jelliefrontier.net 56 points 1 month ago

How about we just do away with unencrypted messaging all-together?

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 3 points 1 month ago

And this is why I dont like matrix.

[-] TheAlbatross 41 points 1 month ago

I'm actually really not concerned about foreign governments spying on me but I am bothered by my own government, the guys with the guns who can arrest me, doing it.

Tho I suspect if the government is recommending ways to avoid messages being intercepted, they've already cracked how to intercept them.

[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 25 points 1 month ago

What's rich is the FBI promoting WhatsApp. Yeah, not a fucking chance.

[-] pdxfed@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

Yeah we can all trust Meta, who never should have been allowed to purchase Whatsapp for antitrust reasons exactly like this. Whatsapp was innovative and very successful outside the US, rather than compete with their own decent product Facebook just absorbed them and gulped their users.

[-] foxitixation@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 month ago

That is why Signal exists.

[-] ozymandias117@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Not to be too conspiratorial, but isn't that a pretty good indicator that Meta capitulated and put a backdoor in WhatsApp for them?

[-] Zak@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago

Messages between two Apple devices are safe, and messages between two Android devices are safe, but messages between an Apple device and and Android device are vulnerable.

This is not very accurate. Some Android devices come with Google Messages, which will use Google's encrypted version of RCS if the carrier supports it. People who don't know what all of that means should not assume their messages are encrypted.

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Anyone know if Google Voice is encrypted? I can read copies of my texts online so I'm thinking no. I've felt like the service has outlived its usefulness for me and that would be the final straw.

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 7 points 1 month ago

Google Voice is definitely not end to end encrypted.

[-] noxy@yiffit.net 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

~~Yes it almost certainly is, though how they manage who can decrypt is another story~~

Nope sorry Google Voice is not encrypted, dunno why I thought it was

[-] capital@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

In what way is it encrypted because I believe the answer is that it is not.

[-] noxy@yiffit.net 1 points 1 month ago

SSL or TLS. No way Google would send that in the clear.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It sends SMS. not RCS. Does SMS even support any type of encryption? I’m under the impression it doesn’t.

Edit: I just sent a message from my GV to my regular carrier number and it’s just SMS. Certainly not encrypted.

[-] noxy@yiffit.net 3 points 1 month ago

Damnit I was thinking of the wrong Google product.

You're right.

[-] Zak@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

I see no reason to believe that it is.

I find it useful when outside the USA to be able to communicate with American luddites who refuse to install messaging apps.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I just sent a test message from my GV to my normal carrier number. It’s regular old SMS. No, not encrypted.

[-] beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org 24 points 1 month ago

The FBI also doesn't want back doors... They just want a way for law enforcement to access any encrypted messages they want to.

https://www.thesslstore.com/blog/us-senator-calls-fbi-director-dumb-stance-encryption/

[-] ftbd@feddit.org 15 points 1 month ago

Article about encryption technology that doesn't even mention the ol' reliable PGP you can use over any communication channel?

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 6 points 1 month ago

User error is high with this one. Also doesn't have PFS.

But you're right it should be mentioned.

[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 15 points 1 month ago

“Don’t let CHINA read your messages! Let Facebook!”

[-] 1985MustangCobra@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 month ago

I have tried, over and over with the people i communicate with daily(family), and because i take medicine they always say "have you seen your phsyc recently?, have you taken your meds?"

[-] underwire212@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Well that would be fucking annoying as fuck lmao. Sorry you have to deal with that

For what it’s worth I’ve got a group of friends who don’t give a shit either. Like they take some weird pleasure in not using E2E communication apps and just use SMS. It takes 2 seconds to download a new app.

They can spy on me all they want, I got nuthin to hide harhar

[-] shasta@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

Nothing to hide yet*. Just because you trust the current government and companies doesn't mean you always will. Data harvested now can be used against you (or your family) in the future. How will these people feel when 20 years from now they are denied medical insurance coverage because they have some data on you that proves you used to consume something that is later proven to cause a medical issue. For example, 50 years ago people didn't know that tobacco caused cancer. How would they feel if that information was used against them? What if just smoking even one cigarette increased their insurance premiums by double? These sorts of things could happen in the future. You never know how laws or economies will change, but one thing is certain: information collected on you now will never be used to your benefit, only to your detriment.

[-] 1985MustangCobra@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

yeah thats the same response "nothing to hide blah blah"

[-] stratoscaster@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Bruh wtf

[-] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

~~That article may as well be sponsored by WhatsApp. Zero direct mentions of Signal, but tons pushing people to WhatsApp. That's a bit disappointing.~~

Edit: I was wrong, it does talk about Signal as well.

[-] SnotFlickerman 22 points 1 month ago

The second half of the article is about Signal.

It sucks they mention WhatsApp first, but I think the bigger omission is that they don't mention non-US entities or anything you can self-host and federate like Matrix.

[-] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Oh, fair enough then!

ETA: Yes, the lack of mentions of Matrix, etc are a bit disappointing. But I think Matrix is waaay outside their target democratic.

[-] weirdbeardgame@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Yeeahhh, they're talking to like Grandma who barely knows what a text message is

[-] semperverus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Matrix isn't super private though. It's halfway there, but compared to something like XMPP, it falls short due to the fact that any instance a user federates with gets a gigantic copy of all of their metadata, and the server operator can do whatever they want with it. So all you would have to do is spin up a new host, message a target user and get them to respond, and you're done.

[-] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

any instance a user federates with gets a gigantic copy of all of their metadata,

No, it does not. Instances get metadata only for the chat rooms in which they participate, not all of a user's metadata.

When chatting with someone on Matrix like you would with text messaging, only your instance and your contact's instance are involved. Because they have to be, in order to exchange messages. Just like every other chat protocol that uses servers, including XMPP.

[-] zephorah@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

Signal or WIRE.

When the article about end to end user encryption messaging platforms mentions neither I have to question why it’s even an article.

Signal or WIRE.

[-] weirdbeardgame@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

It does mention Signal lower down the article

[-] darkstar@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

How, in 2024, are people still using TEXTs??

There are so many apps for encrypted messaging, even fricken WhatsApp.

How do people still use text messages

[-] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

It's an American thing.

[-] Cyber@feddit.uk 2 points 1 month ago

I don't want WhatsApp & I avoid the 'stores, so it's F-Droid options for me...

Any opinions on Jami?

I'm also seeing XMPP mentioned in the comments, so I might look at that a bit more...

[-] hornedfiend@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago

I found SimpleX Chat to be a fairly decent alternative without phone numbers.

[-] Maverick604@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

Session is very good and doesn’t require a phone number (like Signal).

[-] underwire212@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

I don’t believe Signal requires a phone number anymore

[-] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

It does. You just don't need to give it out to communicate anymore

[-] underwire212@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

Ah gotcha. Thanks

this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
224 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

61850 readers
2270 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
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world