FBI's ability to legally access secure messaging app content and metadata [pdf]

Post by unobatbayar » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 3:44 AM UTC

aero-glide2 wrote: post #364

throw_away_dgs wrote: post #230

Some FBI agents came to my house once and told me that my home Internet had been used to visit Islamic Extremist websites. They brought a local police office with them and a 'threat assessment' coordinator from my workplace. They asked me if my family was Muslim and wanted to know if we had been radicalized. We are not religious (at all). We do not attend church, synagogue or mosque. We are lower middle class white A…

I never use a VPN. That changes today.

Post by farzher » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 7:52 AM UTC

skrowl wrote: post #82

georgyo wrote: post #6

It says Telegram has no message content. Isn't telegram not E2EE by default, instead required explicit steps to make a conversation encrypted? Either way looks like Signal wins by a lot. The size of it spot is so small, it seems almost squeezed in. But only because they have nothing to share.

Telegram is encrypted OVER THE WIRE and AT REST by default with strong encryption no matter what you do. It's E2EE if you select private chat with someone. Lots of FUD out there there about Telegram not being encrypted that's just not true. There's nothing either side can to do send a message in clear text / unencrypted.

Post by dredmorbius » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 6:55 PM UTC

Geezus-42 wrote: post #464

dredmorbius wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about it? Without specifics, or some indication of who is triggering the delay (e.g., defendants may request delays), I couldn't possibly comment. Given law and legal processes are not my baliwick, I'd probably not be able to comment intelligently regardless. But you've posed a null-content question.

The State Attorney General dragging the case out because they refuse to look at it. They also filed it under the wrong statue so their arguments are incorrect.

Post by president » Fri, Dec 03, 2021, 12:01 AM UTC

kf6nux wrote: post #243

president wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you even read the snopes article you referenced before making what seems like a definitive claim about how Trump was suggesting muslims carry special IDs? Because Snope's own rating is "Mixture" of truth and false and if you read the assessment, it is grasping at straws to even make that conclusion.

Yes, "mixed" means you have to read the nuance. I think I accurately captured the reality. If you have a correction to offer, please do. EDIT: Ultimately, the nuance in that history is not relevant to the point that criminal law changes to include new categories in unexpected ways.

Post by to11mtm » Sun, Dec 05, 2021, 1:07 AM UTC

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #328

marcan_42 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The emoji comparison thing is mathematically solid. Assuming the clients aren't backdoored (and the Telegram client is open source, so that's not that easy), there is no way for an attacker to make both sides show the same emoji. If they want to convince two users that they have en E2EE connection while performing a man in the middle attack, they'd have to fake their voices to each other to change what emoji sequence…

Telegram can potentially perform mitm at any time and generate matching emoji images for both sides of conversation, since you can't really trust the app code to be the same they put on GitHub. If you've built it yourself, that'd reduce the risk, but nobody does that because blind trust is much more easy.