Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Signal says it won’t compromise on encryption

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 336 posts

Re: Signal says it won’t compromise on encryption

#91

Post by x-complexity »

hunglee2 wrote: post #63

Big govt vs big tech, a battle that is being played out all over the world. Any country that value sovereignty and sees itself as an independent actor rather than a vassal state, must take the position India is taking, or else be susceptible to foreign owned apps influencing its citizenry. The only alternative would be to insist Signal hire its security agents into product / moderator roles, so that oversight can be…

> Any country that value sovereignty and sees itself as an independent actor rather than a vassal state, must take the position India is taking, or else be susceptible to foreign owned apps influencing its citizenry. The only alternative would be to insist Signal hire its security agents into product / moderator roles, so that oversight can be conducted in more implicit ways.

Horrifying take: The implications from such a stance means that the State has ultimate power over the Individual, and that when in conflict, the State's desires for control & order override the civil liberties that the Individual should have, including the right to privacy.

When it comes to privacy, it should be difficult for the State to peek into the private lives of the Individual without explicit consent from said Individual. If not, the private rights of the Individual are as ephemeral as the State's rulings on said rights (e.g. LGBTQ+ rights, abortions, rights to firearms, civil asset forfeiture, eminent domain, government bailouts/loans, etc).

Re: Signal says it won’t compromise on encryption

#93

Post by hunglee2 »

vasco wrote: post #73
hunglee2 wrote: post #63

Big govt vs big tech, a battle that is being played out all over the world. Any country that value sovereignty and sees itself as an independent actor rather than a vassal state, must take the position India is taking, or else be susceptible to foreign owned apps influencing its citizenry. The only alternative would be to insist Signal hire its security agents into product / moderator roles, so that oversight can be…

> be susceptible to foreign owned apps influencing its citizenry Are they banning all of the internet, books, movies and everything else too? Your position is that a state needs to control what the citizens can consume otherwise it's a vassal state? My country lived under dictatorship with hard censorship before, and reading your comment that was the vibes I got.

nothing is getting banned, governments are asking for access, which Signal is signalling it will refuse and withdraw service.

India is a democracy, like the US, which makes similar requests for access for its domestic tech / media firms, as well demand the same for the few foreign owned ones which have had success in the country.

Re: Signal says it won’t compromise on encryption

#94

Post by DocTomoe »

FortiDude wrote: post #82
DocTomoe wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first function of a state is to ensure the continued existence of the state. Which is threatened a lot more by civil uprisings as compared to an external actor, especially in a time when international relations are relatively stable (current security events being the formerly-normal that is today's extreme). Another "storm on the Capitol" is so much more damaging to the US as it exists today as compared to a bord…

The state wouldn't fear civil uprising if it made its citizens' lives half decent

Then it would take away from other powerful factions, which will then ... overthrow the state. The idea of an unified, altruistic populus which will put the average wellbeing over their own is utopian - in both senses of the word.

Reading suggestion: The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics, by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith

Re: Signal says it won’t compromise on encryption

#95

Post by hunglee2 »

ilyt wrote: post #86
hunglee2 wrote: post #63

Big govt vs big tech, a battle that is being played out all over the world. Any country that value sovereignty and sees itself as an independent actor rather than a vassal state, must take the position India is taking, or else be susceptible to foreign owned apps influencing its citizenry. The only alternative would be to insist Signal hire its security agents into product / moderator roles, so that oversight can be…

... so you're saying any country that is independent must violate basic human rights to privacy ?

no such thing as 'human rights to privacy' I am afraid. Rights needs to inviolable, otherwise they are temporary privileges which can be withdrawn at any time. The countries which talk most about human rights have a verifiable track record of transgressing them when convenient

Re: Signal says it won’t compromise on encryption

#96

Post by arynda »

jb_007 wrote: post #77

A noob question, how does signal know/prevent use of its app for illegal/criminal activities? Larger question here would be - Do governments and security agencies need to keep a tab on social media to check for illegal activities

The same way a spoken language is a communication tool and doesn't restrict what is discussed.

Re: Signal says it won’t compromise on encryption

#97

Post by hunglee2 »

x-complexity wrote: post #91
hunglee2 wrote: post #63

Big govt vs big tech, a battle that is being played out all over the world. Any country that value sovereignty and sees itself as an independent actor rather than a vassal state, must take the position India is taking, or else be susceptible to foreign owned apps influencing its citizenry. The only alternative would be to insist Signal hire its security agents into product / moderator roles, so that oversight can be…

> Any country that value sovereignty and sees itself as an independent actor rather than a vassal state, must take the position India is taking, or else be susceptible to foreign owned apps influencing its citizenry. The only alternative would be to insist Signal hire its security agents into product / moderator roles, so that oversight can be conducted in more implicit ways. Horrifying take: The implications from su…

would the US accept an Indian owned app, which was not subject to US legal jurisdiction?.

The issue at stake is one of national security - we have seen that this trumps individual rights whenever the two are in conflict. Look at the creation of NSA post 9/11 - the people broadly accepted this in order to avoid another terrorist attack - and have continued to accept it even as the natsec apparatus continues to expand

Re: Signal says it won’t compromise on encryption

#98

Post by lotqrpa »

gandutraveler wrote: post #48

I do want to hear more about how signal and other companies are working to prevent their apps being used by bad actors, terrorists.

The greatest mystery to me is how anyone can think you can somehow stop 'bad actors' from communicating over the Internet other than banning it as a whole.

Re: Signal says it won’t compromise on encryption

#99

Post by jostyee »

sroussey wrote: post #87
UltraViolence wrote: post #83

Signal is too small a player and is therefore more likely to be bullied by governments. India is taking pot shots at it to see if it can get away with forcing them into intercepting communications. If they leave as a result, they'll simply shrug and move on. Also, I'm convinced that if Signal were to become popular they'd probably sell it to some commercial provider, since the cost of maintaining a service used by hu…

How do you know that there is not a back door in WhatsApp?

Presumption of innocence, or do you have seen any evidence to prove it exist, besides Durov's shit from time to time?

Re: Signal says it won’t compromise on encryption

#100

Post by rakoo »

fsflover wrote: post #92
betwixthewires wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matrix is great, but it leaks a ton of data.

To whom? AFAIK if you self-host, no data is leaked.

If you and everyone you talk to are hosted on servers you trust, down to the physical provider, yes.

EDIT: if the person you're talking to is hosted on Google, Google has all the metadata. Even if one person is hosted on Google and is part of a room you're in, Google has all the metadata in that room.

In 2022 e2ee is the standard for messages but not metadata, and unfortunately Matrix doesn't tackle it, so no, you can't expect 100% privacy.

Post reply on HN