If you own the phone, the messages are decrypted. This seems to be more about the phone access than anything to do with Signal, right?
This should bring into question even more Signal's implementation of using real phone numbers for accounts. It is NOT privacy focused. Even if this 'hackability' is an issue only with the security of the phone/hardware - able to be hacked and thus reach the decrypted signal messages - That also means, that person's Signal contacts also have their real identities exposed. (Where they wouldn't be if the account names/i…
Evidence that the FBI can hack into private Signal messages on a locked iPhone
71–80 of 243 posts
Re: Evidence that the FBI can hack into private Signal messages on a locked iPhone
#72Universal encryption is a defense against blanket vacuuming of communications for later offline analysis. Its a defense against a massive parallel MITM attack against the world's communications infrastructure. Its not a defense against targeted attacks of individual devices.
In addition to this, I frequently hear people talk about how Signal would prevent monitoring of groups like those that stormed the capital. As if you can create a secret communication channel that members of the public can join but the FBI is unable to infiltrate. Signal and E2EE stop dragnets, not targeted efforts. Which honestly is exactly what I want and seems like what we want in a free and open society. Monitori…
Re: Evidence that the FBI can hack into private Signal messages on a locked iPhone
#73Universal encryption is a defense against blanket vacuuming of communications for later offline analysis. Its a defense against a massive parallel MITM attack against the world's communications infrastructure. Its not a defense against targeted attacks of individual devices.
Yeah exactly, we can't read cypher text and so aren't included in the end to end encryption contract of signal. Frankly this is nothing to do with signal and everything to do with phone security.
Re: Evidence that the FBI can hack into private Signal messages on a locked iPhone
#74Universal encryption is a defense against blanket vacuuming of communications for later offline analysis. Its a defense against a massive parallel MITM attack against the world's communications infrastructure. Its not a defense against targeted attacks of individual devices.
In addition to this, I frequently hear people talk about how Signal would prevent monitoring of groups like those that stormed the capital. As if you can create a secret communication channel that members of the public can join but the FBI is unable to infiltrate. Signal and E2EE stop dragnets, not targeted efforts. Which honestly is exactly what I want and seems like what we want in a free and open society. Monitori…
Re: Evidence that the FBI can hack into private Signal messages on a locked iPhone
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
First off, others have pointed out that these are 3rd party software companies providing the tools. I'd like to talk about your other point though: > I’ve never met a skilled developer willing to work for what the government pays So there are a lot of very skilled developers working for the government right now. I'd agree you probably haven't met them. I've found that people who work for the government, especially on…
You forgot a huge dimension of those jobs: As you get older, you are more valuable. No "silicon valley" syndrome about age: you'd never have to dye your hair, wear a hoodie to fit in, nobody will blink if you have to take a day off to take care of the kids. You can be a real adult - nobody comes into those programs and expects a ball pit or a foosball table, and nobody seriously thinks someone right out of college bu…
Many years ago, when my career first started, I was an idealist who thought the way I could give back (as someone who couldn't get into the military for physical reasons) was to work in the defense sector. I also tried very hard to get interviewed by an SV company, but I didn't qualify for an interview due to going to the wrong college and getting the wrong degree.
And I have worked on some seriously badass programs and with some really cool systems and people. In my older age, it's funny because I've come full circle. I'm actually using my experience, and the new all-remote world, to interview with some tech companies. I'm also starting to sour a lot on working with the government and military because my idea of "giving back" has become much more cynical. EDIT- I meant to say here that I've become much more cynical, and working with the government no longer feels like "giving back." Nowadays I give back by working on social issues.
BTW, I'm also upvoting / interacting with your comment because (a) I think you're getting downvoted by people who disagree with you, rather than by people who think you've broken some rule, and (b) I think your perspective represents a pretty common way of looking at SV from the outside world.
Re: Evidence that the FBI can hack into private Signal messages on a locked iPhone
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
You forgot a huge dimension of those jobs: As you get older, you are more valuable. No "silicon valley" syndrome about age: you'd never have to dye your hair, wear a hoodie to fit in, nobody will blink if you have to take a day off to take care of the kids. You can be a real adult - nobody comes into those programs and expects a ball pit or a foosball table, and nobody seriously thinks someone right out of college bu…
I know you're bring downvoted into oblivion for reverse ageism, but my experience mirrors your statements. I think the aggrieved HN masses just don't have similar, or much experience.
Solving really hard problems is valuable. Little gets easier, but you can get better at it.
You have me wondering .. Does expertise from experience (whether compressed into a few years or a lot) qualify as reverse ageism? Is anyone being excluded or denigrated?
It seems plausible (but not exclusively) that the more time and effort you apply to something, the better you will probably get at it. Time alone isn’t a measure of experience and expertise but it doesn’t hurt.
It’s just describing what the experience of someone who has been at something for a while.. might end up like.
Re: Evidence that the FBI can hack into private Signal messages on a locked iPhone
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
In addition to this, I frequently hear people talk about how Signal would prevent monitoring of groups like those that stormed the capital. As if you can create a secret communication channel that members of the public can join but the FBI is unable to infiltrate. Signal and E2EE stop dragnets, not targeted efforts. Which honestly is exactly what I want and seems like what we want in a free and open society. Monitori…
> Monitoring shouldn't be the default but only happen when there is a warranted reason to monitor, preferable with a literal warrant. In many cases, well-done E2EE like Signal stops dragnets and targeted efforts. Even with a literal warrant.
But my main point is that most people are afraid of large organizations of terrorists or bad actors will be able to discuss things without the ability for the FBI to surveil them. Well you can't have "large" and "vet everyone to an extremely high degree." Sure, this will make it more difficult to stop small groups, but those have been notoriously difficult to find and stop in the first place.
Re: Evidence that the FBI can hack into private Signal messages on a locked iPhone
#78Universal encryption is a defense against blanket vacuuming of communications for later offline analysis. Its a defense against a massive parallel MITM attack against the world's communications infrastructure. Its not a defense against targeted attacks of individual devices.
In addition to this, I frequently hear people talk about how Signal would prevent monitoring of groups like those that stormed the capital. As if you can create a secret communication channel that members of the public can join but the FBI is unable to infiltrate. Signal and E2EE stop dragnets, not targeted efforts. Which honestly is exactly what I want and seems like what we want in a free and open society. Monitori…
Its more than warrants, though. The evidence of the last few decades is that warrants aren't enough to block dragnets. Warrants can (and are) avoided through parallel construction. Unscrupulous agents will go off on "LoveInt" missions if it suits their ethics.
Universal encryption uses economic force to make dragnet surveillance infeasible where ethical force has failed.
Re: Evidence that the FBI can hack into private Signal messages on a locked iPhone
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe your assumption that something dubious is going on can be eliminated by Occam's razor? Because: any business that gains in popularity will automatically also see higher press coverage.
Just like women in tech — or any male dominated industries — have proportionately more unfortunate encounters with men because each woman has more men around her to begin with?
Re: Evidence that the FBI can hack into private Signal messages on a locked iPhone
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
In addition to this, I frequently hear people talk about how Signal would prevent monitoring of groups like those that stormed the capital. As if you can create a secret communication channel that members of the public can join but the FBI is unable to infiltrate. Signal and E2EE stop dragnets, not targeted efforts. Which honestly is exactly what I want and seems like what we want in a free and open society. Monitori…
I've upvoted you but wanted to nitpick (sorry) - innocent unless proven guilty doesn't have the temporal connotations that 'until' has.