141–150 of 322 posts
Why is fbi interested? Can anyone explain
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would they take a chance and miss a juicy account at Google/Facebook etc? I don’t think so. Therefore it’s likely they issued requests but Google/Facebook etc were less “inclined” to talk about these things.
This is the correct take. When have they ever ?
https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-03-24...
> In Google’s case, the company typically lets users know which agency is seeking their information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, remember that presidential candidate Bernie Sanders also got smeared with Russian interference, so it is not something only used on Trump or Trump supporters. In my country, Sweden, alleging connections to Russia or Putin is often used in the political discourse to silence individuals or groups, without any sort of proof. It has happened both on the right and the left. We have to remember that many journalists i…
Fox News and conservatives supporting sources smeared sanders that way. Part of it was likely to muddy the waters since Trump had an actual Russia thing, and part was to play up the gops age old boogie man, socialism.
Why would you use Apple software/services for anything like this? You know it's backdoored.
What are you going to switch to? Android?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple has always been subject to US law, and as such, was always required to provide information that they do have access to. If it's in iCloud, most of it can be extracted by the law enforcement with court order. Nothing changed between now and the San Bernardino case. The difference was that FBI wanted Apple to compromise device encryption, which capability does _not_ exist now.
So why hasn't end-to-end encryption been utilized for years with the storage of email and other files, like they do with iMessage content?
Encrypting email metadata prevents emails from being delivered and processed. Metadata is as valuable as the content of the email.
Encrypting emails at rest prevents server-side services from operating, such as webmail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They can do it to anyone. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I fully expect that any American, involved in half the shit that drunk found his way into, would also be under double top secret surveillance. That's reality Jack.
That's a very low standard you are setting for your democratic government. Political prosecutions and spying on counsel is something that the Communists and Nazis did. But even they tried to follow their own laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does this case establish precedent that the fifth amendment applies to people in Kazakhstan?
Onus of precedent would have to be that it does not . If you're able to find any such, I might have further interest in this line of questioning. Though I doubt even that.
What possible reason could you have for that thought?
Precedent is that protections like that are created by treaties like the Geneva Convention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is technically impossible to end-to-end encrypt email.
People routinely do end to end encryption with email every day using either OpenPGP or S/MIME. Heck, email encryption is where the term "end to end encryption" came from. When someone claims E2EE for some other sort of messaging system they have to at least be as good at it as the email case to be taken seriously.
Those solutions encrypt only the content and not the headers, which are just as important. Also, encrypting the content prevents some webmail services from functioning, such as search.
Email can't really be made secure.