611–620 of 785 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Apple truly cares about iMessage in particular maintaining E2EE. iCloud backup, for those who use it, is a different story.
E2EE iCloud backup is generally available since January this year. I have been using it since then with 0 issues. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems nobody uses iMessage in China. The stats I can find don't even list it. Maybe they're ok with leaving it as a way for visitors to talk to people at home.
So the CCP is just content to leave this encrypted form of communication controlled by an American company while simultaneously locking down every other avenue of electronic communication? Because “no one uses it?” If no one uses it why not block it then? I mean, I hope so. Im not convinced though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the possibility of invisible and essentially free screening of private conversations, the analogy is probably more "install cameras in every home that only the government can access". But we promise, they'll be turned off most of the time.
School boards already successfully do this with 'student laptops' also known as in-home monitoring devices that cannot be switched off.
That said, it’s still creepy, I agree.
I feel we've been collectively losing the battle to keep our conversations private. The anti-encryption laws are likely vocally opposed only by a minority, while the majority believes they had no privacy to begin with and governments can read your messages at a whim. And perhaps that's true to some extent. But since most people believe the battle is lost, moreso that this has always been the status quo, then any batt…
It's crazy that we allow this at all. The government can't observe clandestine conversations that occur in person, does that mean they can mandate us to carry a government recording device? That people don't equally balk at requests to encumber encryption is baffling.
For some reason, they never do, and they usually get rather upset with me.
There was an interview with the CEO of Signal and some UK conservative politician[1]. It's a pretty infuriating interview, as both parties try to debate two complete separate issues. Meredith Whittaker of Signal, rightfully tries to debate the issues with breaking encryption and it's ramification, but the politician has that sorted. See they don't want to break the encryption, they want the apps to pick up the messag…
Anyone wishing to control a network of computers must choose either the tube or the box. That is, either you break the tubes and intercept traffic between opaque boxes, or you break into the boxes and leave the tubes opaque. If you assume opaque boxes then by arguing for opaque tubes Meredith Whittaker is arguing for full abdication of control of the network. Politicians don't like that. Some don't like it because in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Individually no, but in aggregate... A few games here, iMessage, Facetime, Whatsapp maybe, some other internet products, etc Does it boast something else to make up for the loss of these things? Trading something for nothing always feels kinda bad. And if the trade is "We stood up for the right thing with respect to Cloud Gaming monopolization", you constituents might be kinda pissed after a while. You know the old a…
Maybe it does boast something else. I am genuinely unsure whether being able (after a judge orders it) to unlock encryption, similar to a front door, is a bad thing. I don't like it, it stinks, I'd hate to experiment with things like this and so I'd vote against it, but is it going to end up worse for the greater good? Can't we still just use proper/steganographic encryption when an authoritarian regime gains power,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how the advancements in western society since (say) WWII have been neccesarily dependant upon privacy? Alan Turing. Hell, Tim Cook, a gay man who grew up in Alabama. Neither would have survived childhood with their personalities intact had their governments had the access No. 10 Downing demands. Privacy preserves society’s margins. The margins, by definition, are where change—growth—is nurtured.
1. You cannot compare Cook to Turing with a straight face, even in terms of their sexuality situation. 2. Privacy is about as personal of a fight to Cook as shareholder obligations are, and only one of them gets him removed if he neglects it. 3. It's pretty fucking stupid to suggest the UK would do the same thing to Turing today if they had the data. You may recall that there are now laws in both the UK and, yes, Ala…
A series of examples isn't necessarily a comparison and is certainly not an equation.
> stupid to suggest the UK would do the same thing to Turing today
Re-read the comment. Nobody suggested as much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's crazy that we allow this at all. The government can't observe clandestine conversations that occur in person, does that mean they can mandate us to carry a government recording device? That people don't equally balk at requests to encumber encryption is baffling.
They feel they have nothing to hide. I find the “nothing to hide” argument baffling, as when they say this, I immediately ask them to tell me about their last sexual encounter, in graphic detail. After all, they’ve nothing to hide. For some reason, they never do, and they usually get rather upset with me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it makes people look like pathetic muppets. If you mean "Fuck Joe Biden", say "Fuck Joe Biden", don't clutch your damn pearls about it.
Interesting take. I understood conservatives to use it because it is also taking a shot at the so-called MSM, who dubiously created the phrase. I never knew people though conservatives were being muppets by using it.