811–820 of 878 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Telegram have never made any attempt to either implement full E2E or to dissuade their users for using it It's probably true. There are still no e2ee chats on desktop, which includes my smartpon running GNU/Linux.
Does iMessage not count and E2EE (with the caveat of disabling iCloud) to you? It’s available on desktop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If either platform doesn't remove the content after having been made aware of it, yes.
Aware of what? Government says a file is illegal? Sounds like a censorship regime to me.
Not if the key is provided to the platform operators to confirm the contents. Otherwise yes anyone could claim any encrypted file contains illicit material and people would game that system.
For what it's worth the key may not need to be manually shared to the provider as referrers often leak where people learned about the file and that source location may also contain the key or password. All it takes is one person using a web interface or addon that leaks such information. Some addons break the referrer-policy header and many website operators don't even set the header [1] in the first place. Example header testing [2]. Please test the sites you visit and kindly ask the website operators to address any missing headers.
# nginx example
referrer-policy "strict-origin" always;
[2] - https://securityheaders.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.ycombinato...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This really isn't a difficult question to answer: You remove the smallest subset of content such that you are allowed to operate in the markets in which you plan to operate/have a business presence in/plan to visit.
That's an imaginary simplicity since there is no such thing: determining a subset requires very high certainty in the rules (to be able to apply them and not run afoul), which doesn't exist in any real legal system
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an imaginary simplicity since there is no such thing: determining a subset requires very high certainty in the rules (to be able to apply them and not run afoul), which doesn't exist in any real legal system
They just needed to remove the CP and none of this would be happening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's important to note that he has only just been arrested, so there will be a case laid out, a defense offered, facts tried, and ultimately a conviction or not. I don't find a lot of sense in speculating about why or why it didn't happen as that will presumably be surfaced during the trial itself. Such events may or may not be followed up on HN as most of time these things turn out to not be wide ranging conspiracie…
The motivations for arresting/prosecuting a person does not usually come up in a trial. Trials usually just present evidence of why this person is supposed to be convicted/guilty, but seldom give insight to the broader picture of why this person was "chosen" while the others are not. I also disagree with the characterization of the discussion as "wide ranging conspiracies"... voicing concern over a government arresti…
In some cases, selective prosecution is itself a defense; but (as you allude to) that is a very high bar for the defense to clear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm appalled that you would argue in good faith that a tool for communicating in secret can be reasonably described as a service used to commit a crime. Why aren't all gun manufacturers in jail then? They must know a percentage of their products are going to be used to commit crimes. A much larger percentage than those using Telegram to commit one.
> I'm appalled that you would argue in good faith that a tool for communicating in secret can be reasonably described as a service used to commit a crime. That's because you're assuming facts not in evidence and painting the broadest possible argument. Obviously we don't know the details yet, but it's not unlikely that this situation was a bit more specific. Consider: F: "We want you to give us the chat logs of this…
However, I still argue that wanting to provide secret communication (which Telegram actually doesn't do) is not abetting crime or helping it more than any other product.
In fact, in my humble opinion, it's the opposite: Private communications are a countermeasure against the natural tendency of governments to become tyrannical, and thus maintaining one is an act of heroism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm appalled that you would argue in good faith that a tool for communicating in secret can be reasonably described as a service used to commit a crime. That's because you're assuming facts not in evidence and painting the broadest possible argument. Obviously we don't know the details yet, but it's not unlikely that this situation was a bit more specific. Consider: F: "We want you to give us the chat logs of this…
You are right; the arrest might be legal and even morally justifiable. However, I still argue that wanting to provide secret communication (which Telegram actually doesn't do) is not abetting crime or helping it more than any other product. In fact, in my humble opinion, it's the opposite: Private communications are a countermeasure against the natural tendency of governments to become tyrannical, and thus maintainin…
That's an easy enough statement in the abstract, but again it doesn't speak to the case of "Durov knowingly hid child porn consumers from law enforcement", which seems likely to be the actual crime. If you want to be the hero in your story, you need to not insert yourself into the plot.
The reason he was arrested was because he created privacy for non-US citizens. Certain Intelligence Agencies won't allow that lol
Telegram was never properly end-to-end encrypted. The way this works is Telegram client sends stuff to the server over client-server encryption. The service provider stores it on server's disk in Netherlands. Since Netherlands is not US, to NSA's hacking team Tailored Access Operations, hacking the server is considered 'fair game', i.e. there are no restrictions. When they hack the server they can read the life of 90…
[Edit: undo blunder]
I have now come to realize (based on [1]) that Telegram's platform was not secure by default, nullifying my arguments here. This discussion has also led me to question the viability of one of my own projects, as it, too, encrypts at disadvantageous points in the pipeline. Hmmm. Sorry for my mistakes here!
[1] https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2024/08/25/telegram...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which government? There has been a lot of mysterious deanons of protesters in Belarus in 2020. You know, the kind of deanon where armed people break down you door and you're going to be beaten and tortured for several days in the very least.
In practice it is very easy to deanon using social engineering. It is enough to open a shared link to expose your IP. A lot of people would click something like "Belorussian protestors got deanonized" or "10 ways to keep you safe" in a group chat. Just get it a catchy title. And this link is specially crafted to lead to the exposer server.
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…
Telegram has become a hotspot for CSAM to the point that it is pretty much inevitable that you're going to encounter someone peddling it just by browsing other channels.