271–280 of 878 posts
If people were using my backyard to sell drugs or CSAM, I knew it, and did nothing about it, I would absolutely be guilty of facilitating these crimes. I fail to see how the situation is different for Pasha.
if i put up a random E2E encrypted messaging side project i made on github and then people started using it for CSAM? People use government built sidewalks to sell drugs, does that mean I can sue the govt for the drug trade?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s really dark and dystopian
really? we seal warrants in the US all the time - we don't want people who we are trying to apprehend to always know ahead of time we are trying to apprehend them
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i don't think that platform providers of encrypted messaging should be required to ensure that none of the images being sent contain CP.
You're missing the key part: Telegram doesn’t have E2EE enabled by default. Group chats and channels aren’t encrypted at all. The only E2EE in Telegram is called "secret chats" and they're 1-on-1.
This seems like the Kim Dotcom situation again. Why are these service providers being punished for what their users do? Specifically, these service providers? Because Google, Discord, Reddit, etc. all contain some amount of CSAM (and other illegal content), yet I don't see Pichai, Citron, or Huffman getting indicted for anything. Hell, then there's the actual infrastructure providers too. This seems like a slippery s…
Because those providers cooperate with authorities and moderate their content to a fairly large degree?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL and not that familiar with the legal situation, but if we assume that running a platform of this type requires you, by law, to moderate such a platform and he fails to do that, idk what we are talking about. Yes, he would clearly be breaking the law. Why would that not get prosecuted in the completely normal, boring way that I would hope all law breaking will eventually be prosecuted? If you are alleging that t…
i don't think that platform providers of encrypted messaging should be required to ensure that none of the images being sent contain CP.
Even E2EE messaging service providers have to cooperate in terms of providing communication metadata and responding to takedown requests. Ignoring law enforcement lands you in a lot of shit everywhere, in Russia you'll just be landing out of a window.
These laws have applied for decades in some shape or form in pretty much all countries, so it shouldn't come as a surprise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if i put up a random E2E encrypted messaging side project i made on github and then people started using it for CSAM? People use government built sidewalks to sell drugs, does that mean I can sue the govt for the drug trade?
Telegram is not E2E encrypted.
A lot of really terrible takes in this comment section. Telegram didn't have encrypted groups by default, and telegram possessed a lot of content on their servers that they had been made aware was illegal and didn't cooperate. Nothing more, nothing less. The comparisons to other providers is off base because either other providers are cooperating more when they possess actionable, unencrypted information and taking s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> stored along with the keys It's not. They use a split-key encryption system so it's not exactly the same as storing the keys where the data is. > It all comes down to your threat model. Encryption does not protect information from entities who hold the keys to decrypt that information. I agree, which is why I'll say that the bottom line is: Are auditable E2EE algorithms stronger in security than cloud encryption? Y…
> It's not. They use a split-key encryption system so it's not exactly the same as storing the keys where the data is. Yes, again, it all comes down to your threat model. No one can kick down the door and get to the keys. But Telegram can get to all the keys, and thus can be legally expected to . The data is effectively plaintext to Telegram. > Is MTProto 2.0 Cloud Encryption plaintext? No. Just to note: "effectively…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because those providers cooperate with authorities and moderate their content to a fairly large degree?
How does Meta cooperate with the authorities? Isn't Whatsapp supposed to be end-to-end encrypted?