231–240 of 312 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate on the "anti-federation" stance of Signal's creator? I'm not familiar with this.
I assume the GP is referring to https://whispersystems.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume the GP is referring to https://whispersystems.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/
That seems to be a very coherent, insightful post by a very highly-respected cypherpunk. I am pretty much 100% on board with what he is saying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd argue that WhatsApp and FBM adopting signal have been some of the highest-impact movements toward resistance of mass surveillance, largely due to sheer numbers and accessibility. Sure, there is room for improvement, but having 0.000001% of t he population using an ultra-secure messenger doesn't have the same impact. And hopefully those improvements will happen in time.
The point is that metadata is more valuable for mass surveillance purposes than content. WhatsApp and FBM do nothing to protect metadata.
you're suggesting that the metadata of "alice messaged bob at 1:20am" is worth more than "hey bob, I'm looking to have $100,000 laundered, same methods as last time. I'll drop to the usual location. thanks, Alice."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reasons from @alexstamos (CSO @ Facebook): - FBM is multi-device, and we'd like to see E2E usability improve to support this. For now, pick one device and keys never leave it - Secret conversations don't currently support popular features like searching message history, switching devices, voice/video, etc - Hundreds of millions use Messenger from a web browser. No secure way to verify code or store keys without routi…
Hundreds of millions use Messenger from a web browser. No secure way to verify code or store keys without routing through mobile. I wouldn't use the web version if they had not disabled Jabber access... and then I could use OTR. This trend makes me very sad... IM networks are getting more centralized as ever. I don't feel thankful for this kind of development. End-to-end encryption should not be a feature of the serv…
From what is written, I understand this to mean that users can select this feature for specific conversations. That not all messages are subject to this encryption. I am not usually one for paranoia, but is anyone else becoming more suspicious about Facebooks motivations and involvement with gov? This feature is a massive boost for intelligence services dealing with unsophisticated actors. This reduces the haystack s…
> I am not usually one for paranoia, but is anyone else becoming more suspicious about Facebooks motivations and involvement with gov? I worked for Facebook; I am friends with the people who developed this: I would like to reassure you strongly (well, as much as an Internet stranger can) on their motives. They are the good guys, and this was develop with people being spied on by abusive governments in mind — because…
I have no reason to trust you, or them. Just because you think people have good motives, doesn't mean it's true. I'm sure there are great people working there, but I'm also sure there are shady people working there. Just like at any big org. "Even though you don't know me, trust me, these guys are cool" arguments don't really help anything.
"End-To-End Encrypted ‘Secret Conversations’" in software that is ordinarily used to harvest electronic phone books and rummage through user photos, from a company that made its whole fortune trying to obliterate privacy as a part of human culture? It's going to be pretty high standards of proof to give this anything that resembles credibility.
I am confident Facebook will meet your high standards when it comes to E2E encryption for Messenger.
What sane person would ever trust Facebook to keep something private? If anything, the addition of "secret conversations" will be more intrusive, because this service delivers more nodes to the social graph: how many secret conversations, with whom, where, at what times, etc. Facebook and the global spy regimes it provides content for care more about building a network of associations than actual content. Who cares about the needle when you can control the haystack?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is that metadata is more valuable for mass surveillance purposes than content. WhatsApp and FBM do nothing to protect metadata.
are you serious? you're suggesting that the metadata of "alice messaged bob at 1:20am" is worth more than "hey bob, I'm looking to have $100,000 laundered, same methods as last time. I'll drop to the usual location. thanks, Alice."
Whereas with just meta-data, you can still at least figure out who the guy is talking to, even if you cannot figure out over this way that the guy is laundering money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems to be a very coherent, insightful post by a very highly-respected cypherpunk. I am pretty much 100% on board with what he is saying.
My response is that we just have to try harder. He's focusing only on encryption and ignoring the massive social problem of one company or a few companies having a monopoly on digital communication. Just like whether or not I'm spied on is irrelevant to whether or not I have the right to private (encrypted) communications, it doesn't matter who has monopoly or what they use it for. We should not be building infrastru…