Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook, WhatsApp Will Have to Share Messages With U.K.?

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 591 posts

Re: Facebook, WhatsApp Will Have to Share Messages With U.K.?

#531

Post by nradov »

soulofmischief wrote: post #527
aoeusnth1 wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you add some substance to this? Why do you think warrant canaries are weak?

If you can be compelled to be silent while breaking constitutional guidelines on the basis of national security, you can be compelled to update a beacon. Warrant canaries are nice to have, but viewing them as something which provides proof of absence of government meddling is incorrect.

Perhaps, but that legal theory has never been tested in US federal court (as far as we know). It's entirely possible that the judicial branch wouldn't allow the executive branch to force private citizens into actively making false statements.

Re: Facebook, WhatsApp Will Have to Share Messages With U.K.?

#532

Post by paulddraper »

wcathcart wrote: post #423
technics256 wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you currently have any backdoors installed?

We do not. You don't have to take our word on this -- I wouldn't want you to. As others on this thread have pointed out it's possible enough to tear through our binaries that if we did have a backdoor it would be discovered.

> tear through our binaries

That's explicitly against your terms of service.

Re: Facebook, WhatsApp Will Have to Share Messages With U.K.?

#533

Post by paulddraper »

inimino wrote: post #511
paulddraper wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To paraphrase Adam Smith, nothing has helped more people more than self-interest in a free market. Raised the standard of living for billions.

Which part of Adam Smith are you paraphrasing exactly? Have you read him?

> Which part of Adam Smith are you paraphrasing exactly?

No one quote in particular; just a recurring theme.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest"

- The Wealth of Nations

"The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition...is so powerful, that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations."

- The Wealth of Nations

"The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would...assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever"

- The Wealth of Nations

"In spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity [capitalists] are led by an invisible hand...and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of society"

- The Theory of Moral Sentiments

> Have you read him?

Yes.

Re: Facebook, WhatsApp Will Have to Share Messages With U.K.?

#534

Post by paulddraper »

tehjoker wrote: post #482
paulddraper wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To paraphrase Adam Smith, nothing has helped more people more than self-interest in a free market. Raised the standard of living for billions.

The free market never has, nor never will exist. The kind of unfair distribution of scarce items to people with the most money, the creating of a competitive rather than cooperative substrate for social interaction. These things tear society apart and have always needed to be moderated whenever a market is present.

> The free market never has, nor never will exist.

If you define the free market as nothing other than anarchy, then yes the free market is rare indeed.

But I don't that know anyone that speaks in such absolutes.

Re: Facebook, WhatsApp Will Have to Share Messages With U.K.?

#535

Post by fragmede »

aoeusnth1 wrote: post #524
soulofmischief wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A warrant canary isn't proof of anything.

Can you add some substance to this? Why do you think warrant canaries are weak?

Warrant canaries haven't been tested in court. (They have been used as notification of an NSL though.) In particular, judges are human beings, not robots, so the laws are interpreted and implemented by humans. Because they're not robots, removing a warrant canary toes the line on communicating to the affected, in violation of an NSL. Thus, removal of the canary most likely means an NSL was received, but the canary staying up doesn't necessarily mean that there wasn't an NSL. Lawyers at every organization have considered the situation and advised their client, but those lawyers are not at the FBI.

Re: Facebook, WhatsApp Will Have to Share Messages With U.K.?

#536

Post by vocatus_gate »

brenden2 wrote: post #93
pmlnr wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't pay rent with good feelings. So just keep making the world shittier. Gotta love individualist capitalism.

I quit my (good paying) job to burn through my savings and start my own company because I want to fix this, so it's not everyone who behaves that way :)

I left the NSA after 4 years because I didn't want to support some of the things going on there. Can't dismantle it, but can at least not contribute.

Re: Facebook, WhatsApp Will Have to Share Messages With U.K.?

#537

Post by swiley »

krick wrote: post #519
dessant wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I can compile the code from source myself, without any backdoors, then I can be reasonably assured there aren't any backdoors Where does that leave the rest of society? Having open source software and hardware is not enough, we also need laws that prohibit mass surveillance and support our efforts to uphold human rights.

That's a weird way too see things. You are pretty much saying that wearing a bulletproof vest won't save you from the bullet, but laws forbidding to kill people somehow magically will. Well, I suppose you also could literally say that and I kinda can see where are you coming from, but I think it's somewhat delusional. Proper law enforcement (mind the "enforcement" part) can make a neighborhood safe enough so that nob…

The most concerning thing about mass surveillance and mass manipulation isn't the direct impact to some hypothetical enemy of the state (although that is concerning, people in that situation are more or less a lost cause), it's that public discourse and democracy can be pushed around by some small controlling group.

Re: Facebook, WhatsApp Will Have to Share Messages With U.K.?

#538

Post by martinbooth »

huhtenberg wrote: post #452
wcathcart wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do not. You don't have to take our word on this -- I wouldn't want you to. As others on this thread have pointed out it's possible enough to tear through our binaries that if we did have a backdoor it would be discovered.

> it's possible enough to tear through our binaries No, it's not "possible enough" and I strongly suspect you fully realize that. A backdoor doesn't need to be in a form of an IF statement or something comparably obvious and silly. It can be a weakly seeded PRNG that would allow a "determined party" to brute-force the key exchange in a reasonable time. That would take man-years to fish out from a binary, and that's w…

Distributing an altered binary to specific targets should be impossible as WhatsApp don't control the distribution, Apple and Google do. They would also have to be complicit too for a targeted attack to be feasible. By having to distribute the same binary to everyone it is much harder to conceal a backdoor

Re: Facebook, WhatsApp Will Have to Share Messages With U.K.?

#539

Post by em-bee »

rahuldottech wrote: post #430
concordDance wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate in the link between unlimited access and manufacturing truth?

If I don't have access to your conversation and people know this, but I claim that I know you said something in such a conversation, people can ask how I know it and demand proof. If your conversations aren't encrypted and I have access to them, and people know this, then if I claim that you said a certain something in such a conversation, people are more likely to just believe me. Also, unencrypted data is data that…

data can still be signed.

Re: Facebook, WhatsApp Will Have to Share Messages With U.K.?

#540

Post by jhardy54 »

fragmede wrote: post #535
aoeusnth1 wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you add some substance to this? Why do you think warrant canaries are weak?

Warrant canaries haven't been tested in court. (They have been used as notification of an NSL though.) In particular, judges are human beings, not robots, so the laws are interpreted and implemented by humans. Because they're not robots, removing a warrant canary toes the line on communicating to the affected, in violation of an NSL. Thus, removal of the canary most likely means an NSL was received, but the canary st…

I don't think you're meant to remove warrant canaries when you get a secret court order, you're just meant to continue renewing your warrant canary at a regular interval as long as you don't get a secret court order.

My understanding is that they can prevent you from removing warrant canaries but they can't force you to continue announcing "I have not received a secret warrant".

Post reply on HN