51–60 of 105 posts
Can someone fill me in on why people are upset Facbook will be consolidating DMs/PMs accross services - using E2E ? I've went other the past news releases, it seems to be a good thing to me.
They will build the largest surveillance system ever conceived and will sell it under the banner of consumer encryption."
# Charge for the service (whatsapp will lose 90% of its userbase in a month)
# Show generic ads (worse value than even TV ads, because at least TV ads know a little bit about the viewers of a certain show but whatsapp has no idea)
# Figure out a way to deliver targeted ads.
This article specifically talks about sex workers using whatsapp and the fact that because of meta data sharing, IF a warrant comes from the government to find users associated with a certain group (such as sex workers groups) on Facebook, it indirectly brings whatsapp users into that group as well through indirect means. Interesting issue yet so many "if"s. The reality is that Facebook needs to make money from whats…
Why? Whatsapp used to charge a yearly fee for the app.
Can someone fill me in on why people are upset Facbook will be consolidating DMs/PMs accross services - using E2E ? I've went other the past news releases, it seems to be a good thing to me.
E.g. Middle East countries
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“I think steganography is an excellent way to deliver encrypted messaging to consumers.” is in your prior post. If you are not using stegonagraphy for the obscurity aspect, why use it at all? Why not just encrypted plaintext that can be decrypted? Stegonagraphy is intended to conceal that a message is being sent at all, other than the apparent message of an image. If my recipient and I are both using Cool Stegonagrap…
I meant messaging in a more general context. It does not remove that feature at all. Why do you think that two people using the same app or algorithm automatically reveals the presence of a hidden byte array? You just vary the way data is read out of the image using the same password used for encryption. Even if they could recover every single bit using statistics (which they can't) they would have no idea what order…
Sure, stegonagraphy has a capacity for information that based on the image format utilized. But the real upper capacity is dependent upon the other layers.
The way to make it user friendly is to make it transparent. I don’t see how this would do that.
Can someone fill me in on why people are upset Facbook will be consolidating DMs/PMs accross services - using E2E ? I've went other the past news releases, it seems to be a good thing to me.
Metadata + Countries where Rule Of Law doesn't apply + "Law" Enforcement requests E.g. Middle East countries
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Steganographic communication as a substitute for encrypted text is a baffling misinterpretation of the reason for encryption in a chat program. > I agree with you, but couldn't you say the same thing about using end-to-end encryption in a chat program as a substitute for messaging that's just encrypted in transit? I just want to point out, again, that this is not an argument that I tried to make.
But what are you saying people should do? Only communicate information that I don’t mind being public using traditional non-secure messaging systems, and use stegonagraphy whenever one wants to communicate private information?
I can encrypt the hard drive. I can encrypt a text file to a binary encrypted file. I can encrypt a text file to a text file with something like pgp. But none of those are what I would call user friendly. But through the magic of steganography you could do all that and save it to an image file. Now we have something that people might be comfortable using.
As for secure chat idk. I wouldn't trust Windows, iOS, Android, my ISP, my VPN, the NSA (and whoever else), the spyware my mom has installed on her computer that neither of us know about, etc. I'd probably just google for something but I wouldn't be under any illusion that it's totally secure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I meant messaging in a more general context. It does not remove that feature at all. Why do you think that two people using the same app or algorithm automatically reveals the presence of a hidden byte array? You just vary the way data is read out of the image using the same password used for encryption. Even if they could recover every single bit using statistics (which they can't) they would have no idea what order…
I’m not saying that the message isn’t secure in an encryption sense. It’s just that embedding it in an image has no advantage in an encryption sense, and if the advantage is not secrecy about the presence of a message at all, what is it? Sure, stegonagraphy has a capacity for information that based on the image format utilized. But the real upper capacity is dependent upon the other layers. The way to make it user fr…
Facebook encrypted messaging! What's next, military intelligence? How about a vegan big-mac? Maybe a quality automobile by GM? I think steganography is an excellent way to deliver encrypted messaging to consumers. It has so many inherent features that I'm surprised it isn't already widely used. Let's see: - easy to recognize but hard to detect - can pass through any channel that accepts images - massive storage capac…
> can pass through any channel that accepts images No. Any online service worth its salt is going to reencode images to serve proper sizes and maybe do other processing. Along the way stuff like EXIF data and other worthless (for displaying the image) chuff will get stripped from the image. Alternatively, if you mean not somehow embedding in the file but encoding in the actual pixels of the image, that data will get…
Yes. Any algorithm designed to be resilient to common processing steps will pass this test with flying colors. Also, EXIF data is not used in steganography, by definition.
Can someone fill me in on why people are upset Facbook will be consolidating DMs/PMs accross services - using E2E ? I've went other the past news releases, it seems to be a good thing to me.
"They will make money by tracking your relationships and social groups. They will make that information easily accessible to law enforcement. They will build the largest surveillance system ever conceived and will sell it under the banner of consumer encryption."
If I could snap my fingers and everyone would switch to Matrix [1] I would, but as it stands hundreds of millions of people use these services daily and getting them more privacy will be useful.