Is there an easy way for the people to make an open letter to Mr. Zuckerberg asking decline on Barrs request?
Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
31–40 of 592 posts
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#32> "We are writing to request that Facebook does not proceed with its plan to implement end-to-end encryption across its messaging services without ensuring that there is no reduction to user safety."
Seems easy for FB to comply with this: they are adding encryption specifically to improve user safety.*
The later extract in the article body talks about "public" safety, which is the classic false dichotomy that has been brought up by law agencies for the past 30 years.
Much as it sticks in my craw to say something supportive of either of that meretricious duo Barr and Patel, I have to admit I am glad that they are using an open letter rather than trying for a backroom deal or quiet threats. Perhaps they tried those already and have been rebuffed.
I have seen some friends of mine outraged by social media's inability to do wholesale censorship, spurred by some NYT articles on child abuse from last week. I wonder if that was coordinated?
* OK, they are a corporation doing it to encourage people to use their service, but they are trying to accomplish that by improving user safety.
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#33Sometimes I can understand the willingness to reduce the privacy of self and others in order to ensure that the law is able to prosecute those involved in heinous crimes. Our current political environment though involved a president openly calling on foreign governments to investigate his political opponents. What is to stop them from going after the private communications of those same opponents in the name of targe…
On top of that, so these crimes didn't exist before mobile phones? They just want to sit in the ivory tower and see everything. I'll also agree to this the day after Barr hands me his unlocked personal phone. I promise not to disclose anything I find.
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#34"We are writing to request that Facebook does not proceed with its plan to implement end-to-end encryption across its messaging services without ensuring that there is no reduction to user safety." I don’t get it. How could end-to-end encryption reduce user safety?
This is the authoritarian argument that it makes everyone less safe if they're not allowed to spy on everyone.
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#35It's really amazing how often tyranny is justified on the basis of "safety". It's why the "trust and safety" team moniker ubiquitous in the tech industry sounds so Orwellian.
I think tech companies would have a stronger basis for refusing to monitor and censor user traffic if they hadn't volunteered to monitor and censor some user traffic. Doing anything some of the time makes you vulnerable to pressure to do more of that thing.
Carrying all legal content and refusing any cooperation with the government without a warrant is the only sustainable path.
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#36There was a discussion not long ago about brain privacy on the front page and this twitter thread was brought up in the comments:
https://twitter.com/hashbreaker/status/709314886384427008
> Fun game to play: Take statements from Comey et al. Replace "smartphones" with "brains"/"memories"/"thoughts". Technology will get us there!
Very on brand for the new versions of this request...
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#37I don't think this often, but, in this case, Facebook is doing the right thing both ethically and practically.
Facebook isn't doing it because they believe in it. WhatsApp added E2EE after being acquired by Facebook but before FB fully took control, a parting gift of sorts.
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#38Sometimes I can understand the willingness to reduce the privacy of self and others in order to ensure that the law is able to prosecute those involved in heinous crimes. Our current political environment though involved a president openly calling on foreign governments to investigate his political opponents. What is to stop them from going after the private communications of those same opponents in the name of targe…
Indeed the "anit-corruption" drive is widely considered President Xi's method to consolidate his power in China ("Flies and Tigers"). It's an only slightly more subtle version of double speak, accuse your opponents of exactly what it is that you are doing, so if it ever leaks you can point and say "see what he's doing too!".
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#39> We are writing to request that Facebook does not proceed with its plan to implement end-to-end encryption across its messaging services without ensuring that there is no reduction to user safety. Oh, so you’re asking for more end-to-end encryption? > While the letter acknowledges that Facebook, which owns Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, and Instagram, captures 99% of child exploitation and terrorism-related content t…
> captures 99% of child exploitation and terrorism-related content Credit where it's due, good on them building such effective systems to catch this content.
But they just made that number up.
Re: Attorney General will ask Zuckerberg to halt plans for end-to-end encryption
#40"We are writing to request that Facebook does not proceed with its plan to implement end-to-end encryption across its messaging services without ensuring that there is no reduction to user safety." Isn't the entire point of E2E Encryption for user safety, as in safety from the government reading your message?
True E2E Encryption would also mean the platform(FB, Telegram, Google, Apple, etc.) also can not read the messages and thus the law enforcement can not force them to reveal what a user said because it would be impossible for them to know.
You are partially right but the issue is that E2E isn't even enough. E2E doesn't matter if they force a patched binary that also sends the data to the government. This is EXACTLY what the Australian laws saws they must do, oh and it is a gag order so they can't disclose it.
I'm starting to wonder if this is a smokescreen. Eventually give in to E2E because you know you have got app store signing keys for the apps so you can upload a patched one with backdoors.