121–130 of 592 posts
What's stopping the government from just forcing Facebook to provide access to the servers directly, or through some sort of portal?
This just means the government can't intercept them without Facebook cooperation... no?
"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?
They’re talking about national security. They want to read your messages so they can see if you’re a potential terrorist. They are not talking about users security. They don’t give a fuck about that as evidenced by the equifax debacle.
That is their stated reason. If given access they will also read your messages to determine if you are a drug dealer, or a drug user, or have committed financial crimes, or if you're organizing disfavored political activity, or...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can they know they capture 99% of such content given that WhatsApp is (if I understand correctly) encrypted fully end to end such that Facebook cannot access the messages passing through it?
A third party observer cannot read the messages as they pass through the whatsapp network, but Facebook can read the messages at both ends. Facebook has said that they don't do this outside of Australia, where it is required by law, but come on, are we really going to take Zuckerberg's word for it?
> 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…
How can they know they capture 99% of such content given that WhatsApp is (if I understand correctly) encrypted fully end to end such that Facebook cannot access the messages passing through it?
It's disgraceful that Signal hailed WhatsApp's announcement to use it almost like a second coming of a religious figure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
99% of domestic disturbances happen in private homes. Should they put cameras there, too?
It's called "Telescreen" and will be soon available.
If they don't do E2E, users will abandon Facebook for platforms that do support it (and already are). And they aren't doing this to commit crimes, but to prevent advertisements from targeting every conversation they've ever had.
The claim of catching 99% of activity is really hard to justify. In many detection systems you cannot know your true number of false negatives. It's inherently unknowable in this case. A better metric would be mean time to detection for a given CEP sharer or perhaps a metric around how much CEP is shared before detection, or perhaps a metric for network size of CEP and how well FB can clean up an entire network at on…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
99% of domestic disturbances happen in private homes. Should they put cameras there, too?
It's called "Telescreen" and will be soon available.