629
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 15 points 6 days ago

The same people who want to get rid of encryption

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

I mean, clearly not the SAME people.

[-] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 230 points 1 week 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 78 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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

[-] dan@upvote.au 45 points 1 week 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] theherk@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago

Different parts of the government. Both existed then and now. There has for a long time been a substantial portion of the government, especially defense and intelligence, that rely on encrypted comms and storage.

[-] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 15 points 1 week ago

FBI has definitely always been anti-encryption

[-] elucubra@sopuli.xyz 18 points 1 week ago

I have never understood why electronic communications are not protected as physical mail

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 180 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] circuitfarmer 115 points 1 week 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 34 points 1 week 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 51 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 27 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[-] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 1 week 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 (10 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works 85 points 1 week ago
[-] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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)
[-] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 83 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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

[-] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (36 replies)
[-] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 66 points 1 week 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 59 points 1 week ago

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

[-] Agent641@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] walden@sub.wetshaving.social 51 points 1 week 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 54 points 1 week ago

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

[-] treadful@lemmy.zip 37 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 16 points 1 week ago

So, bet won?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] mox 35 points 1 week 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com 48 points 1 week ago

From RFC 2804:

  • The IETF believes that adding a requirement for wiretapping will make affected protocol designs considerably more complex. Experience has shown that complexity almost inevitably jeopardizes the security of communications even when it is not being tapped by any legal means; there are also obvious risks raised by having to protect the access to the wiretap. This is in conflict with the goal of freedom from security loopholes.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc2804/

This was written in 2000 in response to US government requests to add backdoors to voice-over-IP (VoIP) standards.

It was recognized 25 years ago that having tapping capabilities is fundamentally insecure.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] mox 39 points 1 week 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 1 week ago

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

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 38 points 1 week ago

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

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

[-] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 33 points 1 week ago

I use a one time pad with all of my contacts. I ask them to eat or burn each page when they are used up.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] A_A@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

What i read [and corrected] from the article :

"The hacking ~~campaign~~ [group], nicknamed [ by Microsoft ] Salt Typhoon ~~by Microsoft~~,
[ this actual campaign of attacks ] is one of the largest intelligence compromises in U.S. history, and not yet fully remediated. Officials in a press call Tuesday [ 2024-12-3 ] refused to set a timetable for declaring the country’s telecommunications systems free of interlopers. Officials had previously told NBC News that China hacked AT&T, Verizon and Lumen Technologies to spy on customers."

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

Guess that confirms that E2EE is effective against these backdoors.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2024
629 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

59875 readers
2517 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 another!
  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

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS