629
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2024
629 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
59889 readers
2313 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You are suggesting that "end-to-end" is some kind of legally codified phrase. It just isn't. If Google were to steal data from a system claiming to be end-to-end encrypted, no one would be surprised.
I think your point is: if that were the case, the messages wouldn't have been end-to-end encrypted, by definition. Which is fine. I'm saying we shouldn't trust a giant corporation making money off of selling personal data that it actually is end-to-end encrypted.
By the same token, don't trust Microsoft when they say Windows is secure.
Its a specific, technical phrase that means one thing only, and yes, googles RCS meets that standard:
https://support.google.com/messages/answer/10262381?hl=en
They have more technical information here if you want to deep dive about the literal implementation.
You shouldn't trust any corporation, but needless FUD detracts from their actual issues.
You are missing my point.
I don't deny the definition of E2EE. What I question is whether or not RCS does in fact meet the standard.
You provided a link from Google itself as verification. That is... not useful.
Has there been an independent audit on RCS? Why or why not?
Not that I can find. Can you post Signals most recent independent audit?
Many of these orgs don't post public audits like this. Its not common, even for the open source players like Signal.
What we do have is a megacorp stating its technical implementation extremely explicitly for a well defined security protocol, for a service meant to directly compete with iMessage. If they are violating that, it opens them up to huge legal liability and reputational harm. Neither of these is worth data mining this specific service.
I'm not suggesting that Signal is any better. I'm supporting absolute distrust until such information is available.
Here's all their independent audits:
https://community.signalusers.org/t/overview-of-third-party-security-audits/13243
Thank you. I had trouble running down a list.
I do consider Signal to be a more trustworthy org than Google clearly, but find this quibbling about them "maybe putting a super secret backdoor in the e2ee they use to compete with iMessage" to be pretty clear FUD.
Even if we assume they don't have a backdoor (which is probably accurate), they can still exfiltrate any data they want through Google Play services after it's decrypted.
They're an ad company, so they have a vested interest in doing that. So I don't trust them. If they make it FOSS and not rely on Google Play services, I might trust them, but I'd probably use a fork instead.