Google backs off on previously announced Allo privacy feature • Hacker News Board

Re: Google backs off on previously announced Allo privacy feature

#41

Post by NetStrikeForce » Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 2:06 PM UTC

tombrossman wrote: post #22

NetStrikeForce wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One implies the other.

A fair percentage of people (myself included) are far more concerned about protecting our data from marketers, advertisers, and data brokers, than we are about going 100% 'tinfoil hat' mode and worrying whether the NSA is monitoring my messages for thought crimes. These are two very distinct issues and not everyone is concerned about both equally.

> A fair percentage of people (myself included) are far more concerned about protecting our data from marketers, advertisers, and data brokers, than we are about going 100% 'tinfoil hat' mode and worrying whether the NSA is monitoring my messages for thought crimes.

The main issue here is that people aren't worried about either of those problems :) otherwise Facebook, Google and other advertising companies would only have a handful of users.

> These are two very distinct issues and not everyone is concerned about both equally.

Divide and conquer... not. The issue is the same, we should fight together for more privacy, not disregard other people's reasons for requesting more privacy.

In any case, as you were replying to my previous comment, my point was that if the company has access to your data, Law Enforcement has got it too. Also if Law Enforcement has access to your data it means it wasn't also available for the company. Hence why one implies the other. You might be worried about one, but you've got two :)

Re: Google backs off on previously announced Allo privacy feature

#42

Post by rryan » Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 2:09 PM UTC

retox wrote: post #2

>Allo messages will still be encrypted between the device and Google servers, and stored on servers using encryption that leaves the messages accessible to Google’s algorithms. 'using encryption that leaves the messages accessible to Google’s algorithms' So, not meaningfully encrypted at all then?

I've seen this sentiment in a couple of places now -- and the news media and non-technical folks seem to refer to "encryption" very loosely to mean "protected in the way I want it to be protected at the times I want it to be protected".

Can we please use technical terms with precision?

You can have data encrypted at rest and in transit that is still accessible to the provider and the fact that the provider can decrypt it for processing doesn't make it any less "encrypted". There is not a total ordering of encryption or security schemes.

If you would like to say that the data isn't end-to-end encrypted such that it is opaque to the service provider -- say that. Don't say it isn't meaningfully encrypted.

Re: Google backs off on previously announced Allo privacy feature

#43

Post by alanwatts » Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 2:10 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #31

alanwatts wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dr. King was monitored by the NSA for "thought crimes". Is that "100% tinfoil hat mode"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#NSA_mon...

How is that relevant to the fact that many people are more worried about marketers than the NSA? Nobody's questioning that some people are in fact so monitored. "I am more concerned about A than B" is not a claim that B does not exist, nor is it a claim that "I" am unconcerned about B.

>the fact that many people are more worried about marketers than the NSA?

How do you know this is a fact, was a global survey done?

>I am more concerned about A than B" is not a claim that B does not exist, nor is it a claim that "I" am unconcerned about B.

Indeed, however the phrase "100% tinfoil hat mode" does imply being unconcerned about B, and that anyone who is is a lunatic.

Re: Google backs off on previously announced Allo privacy feature

#44

Post by idealpersona » Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 2:14 PM UTC

nevir wrote: post #25

retox wrote: post #2

>Allo messages will still be encrypted between the device and Google servers, and stored on servers using encryption that leaves the messages accessible to Google’s algorithms. 'using encryption that leaves the messages accessible to Google’s algorithms' So, not meaningfully encrypted at all then?

Probably stored under the same security infrastructure as Gmail and hangouts messages. Which, IIRC, means no human is given direct access without the account holder's permission. Algorithms are allowed access, but only if they emit data that is similarly secured, or emits data in aggregate (where, I think, aggregate was defined as 100k+ users per aggregate data point) It's extremely hard for a Googler or product team…

Extremely hard. I am so sick of hearing this. It all boils down to hand waving and assumptions instead of verification and scrutiny.

Re: Google backs off on previously announced Allo privacy feature

#45

Post by blowski » Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 2:21 PM UTC

rryan wrote: post #38

This seems to be where the "backing off" claim is coming from: http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/18/11699122/google-allo-messa... > First, all conversations are encrypted "on the wire," which means that nobody on the internet can read them as you send your message. They are read by Google's servers, but Kay assures me that the data is stored "transiently," which is to say that Google doesn't keep your chat logs around t…

I lost all my WhatsApp chat history after a phone upgrade went wrong, and it didn't cause me any problems at all. I recognise that my use case is not the same as everyone's, but if I want to save something from WhatsApp, I put it somewhere else.

Re: Google backs off on previously announced Allo privacy feature

#46

Post by themihai » Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 2:22 PM UTC

nevir wrote: post #25

retox wrote: post #2

>Allo messages will still be encrypted between the device and Google servers, and stored on servers using encryption that leaves the messages accessible to Google’s algorithms. 'using encryption that leaves the messages accessible to Google’s algorithms' So, not meaningfully encrypted at all then?

Probably stored under the same security infrastructure as Gmail and hangouts messages. Which, IIRC, means no human is given direct access without the account holder's permission. Algorithms are allowed access, but only if they emit data that is similarly secured, or emits data in aggregate (where, I think, aggregate was defined as 100k+ users per aggregate data point) It's extremely hard for a Googler or product team…

That's really just BS. What's the point of encryption if both the keys and the content is known by Google? They could as well use just SSL and that wouldn't make it safer than this kind of "encryption".

Re: Google backs off on previously announced Allo privacy feature

#47

Post by hiddenkrypt » Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 2:25 PM UTC

tanqueray wrote: post #33

romanovcode wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Couldn't Google have made its billions still being not evil No. Google is advertising company and advertisement companies need a lot of user data for targeted ads.

How does it benefit by keeping data forever though? Of what use is aged data?

It doesn't. They need a constant stream of new data for their business model to work. Thus, they benefit from continuously collecting data on users.

Re: Google backs off on previously announced Allo privacy feature

#48

Post by nevir » Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 2:28 PM UTC

themihai wrote: post #46

nevir wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably stored under the same security infrastructure as Gmail and hangouts messages. Which, IIRC, means no human is given direct access without the account holder's permission. Algorithms are allowed access, but only if they emit data that is similarly secured, or emits data in aggregate (where, I think, aggregate was defined as 100k+ users per aggregate data point) It's extremely hard for a Googler or product team…

That's really just BS. What's the point of encryption if both the keys and the content is known by Google? They could as well use just SSL and that wouldn't make it safer than this kind of "encryption".

The benefits of this sort of encryption & privacy infrastructure:

* Protects you (user) from eavesdroppers between you and Google.

* Protects your data from eavesdroppers inside Google's data centers.

* Protects your data at rest (on disk).

* Protects your data from malicious employees.

* Enforces a great deal of scrutiny over who can access your data, and what they are allowed to see.

But, yes, they process and store your data, so there's no 100℅ secure approach to be had here.

---

SSL only handles the first two bullet points.

Re: Google backs off on previously announced Allo privacy feature

#49

Post by pritambaral » Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 2:34 PM UTC

kyrra wrote: post #40

karmajunkie wrote: post #4

Was anybody actually planning to use Allo for encrypted communications? I was under the impression it was written off at its announcement.

Why was it written off? It's using Whisper Systems tech to do it's end-to-end encryption[0]. Is there someway Google could inject itself into this, or some reason people shouldn't trust it? [0] https://whispersystems.org/blog/allo/

There is always a way to inject malicious code in a codebase you control. The Allo apps are closed-source and their code is solely controlled by Google. Doesn't matter which protocols they claim to be using, when they could simply push an update which silently uploads your private keys to their server (or breaks the claim in any of the many different ways).

This is the same reason even WhatsApp's use of 'end-to-end encryption' cannot be considered secure from WhatsApp.

Re: Google backs off on previously announced Allo privacy feature

#50

Post by tombrossman » Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 2:37 PM UTC

NetStrikeForce wrote: post #41

tombrossman wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fair percentage of people (myself included) are far more concerned about protecting our data from marketers, advertisers, and data brokers, than we are about going 100% 'tinfoil hat' mode and worrying whether the NSA is monitoring my messages for thought crimes. These are two very distinct issues and not everyone is concerned about both equally.

> A fair percentage of people (myself included) are far more concerned about protecting our data from marketers, advertisers, and data brokers, than we are about going 100% 'tinfoil hat' mode and worrying whether the NSA is monitoring my messages for thought crimes. The main issue here is that people aren't worried about either of those problems :) otherwise Facebook, Google and other advertising companies would only…

Thanks, that's clearer to me now.

When marketers collect my personal info, it's far more likely to be distributed widely so I place a greater emphasis on protecting it from them. I don't like the fact that nation-states are spying on the citizenry, but I don't know what I can do about that. I DO know what to do about the surveillance capitalists.