The gloves are really off against the best interests of the public now aren't they?
France threatens GrapheneOS with arrests / server seizure for refusing backdoors
141–150 of 399 posts
Re: France threatens GrapheneOS with arrests / server seizure for refusing backdoors
#142I think your devices should have government-mandated backdoors if and only if you are a public servant. I don't understand why private citizens are held to higher standards of conduct than politicians and cops.
> if you are a public servant. I don't understand why private citizens are held to higher standards of conduct than politicians and cops. Last time I checked, politicians and cops are private citizens... Wherever you stand on this, I can't understand the justification for this "one rule for thee" position.
They're actually public figures and have different standards since they're being paid by the public to represent their interests.
Re: France threatens GrapheneOS with arrests / server seizure for refusing backdoors
#143so, they are basically confirming Android and Apple have their backdoors as no arrests or seizures on that matter have taken place
> As of 2018 through an initiative sometimes termed "Five Eyes Plus 3", Five Eyes has agreements with France, Germany, and Japan to introduce an information-sharing framework to counter China and Russia.
Re: France threatens GrapheneOS with arrests / server seizure for refusing backdoors
#144https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/115589833471347871 > The FBI ran a sting operation in Europe where they created their own 'secure' phone and messaging platform. Their OS used portions of our code and was heavily marketed as being GrapheneOS or based on GrapheneOS. So how do we know GrapheneOS itself isn't a honeypot? It's run by a mystery org and heavily marketed as being a secure platform. https://en.wikipedia…
The honeypot run by the FBI was closed source and that's why they could do it. while this is open source, which would make it much harder.
For more on this subject, here's a book that documents it: https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Wire-Incredible-Largest-Operatio....
Re: France threatens GrapheneOS with arrests / server seizure for refusing backdoors
#145Remember when they arrested Pavel Durov? I don't buy their official reasoning. Dear European friends, our leaders are tightening the screws. If we don't make our voices heard this is only going to get worse. https://x.com/durov/status/1976420399970701543
In the Pavel case, it involved child pornography groups on Telegram and the fact that they ignore a court order.
But I agree with you for the authoritarian logics in Europe (even America) with Chat Control and other actions like the French gov. just did....
Re: France threatens GrapheneOS with arrests / server seizure for refusing backdoors
#146I think your devices should have government-mandated backdoors if and only if you are a public servant. I don't understand why private citizens are held to higher standards of conduct than politicians and cops.
> if you are a public servant. I don't understand why private citizens are held to higher standards of conduct than politicians and cops. Last time I checked, politicians and cops are private citizens... Wherever you stand on this, I can't understand the justification for this "one rule for thee" position.
Logistically, when you combine private citizenship with government you get corruption problems because incentives are so misaligned.
In fact private citizenship combined with government is the origin of corruption. Think about it, as a government official your incentive should be to preserve order, fairness and honor. As a private citizen your goal is to optimize the amount of money you make via business or employment through whatever means possible. That means exploiting loopholes and possibly when no one is looking, breaking the law.
The incentives are orthoganol and it does make sense to have a different set of rights and rules for government officials and private citizens. The minute you take the attitudes of private business/citizens into the world of government you get people creating rules that are corrupt.
Re: France threatens GrapheneOS with arrests / server seizure for refusing backdoors
#147so, they are basically confirming Android and Apple have their backdoors as no arrests or seizures on that matter have taken place
absolutely yes
Re: France threatens GrapheneOS with arrests / server seizure for refusing backdoors
#148https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/115589833471347871 > The FBI ran a sting operation in Europe where they created their own 'secure' phone and messaging platform. Their OS used portions of our code and was heavily marketed as being GrapheneOS or based on GrapheneOS. So how do we know GrapheneOS itself isn't a honeypot? It's run by a mystery org and heavily marketed as being a secure platform. https://en.wikipedia…
It's disappointing to see such blatant misinformation on HN. There has been a wave of these low quality trolls and it's increasing everyday
Re: France threatens GrapheneOS with arrests / server seizure for refusing backdoors
#149so, they are basically confirming Android and Apple have their backdoors as no arrests or seizures on that matter have taken place
That was my read on that too.
Re: France threatens GrapheneOS with arrests / server seizure for refusing backdoors
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
I seem to remember the FBI attempting to compel Apple to decrypt a criminal's iPhone, only for Apple to refuse and claim that it wasn't possible. I'm not sure exactly what happened after that. I think it was suspected that the NSA was able to do it by exploiting an unpatched zero-day. So they didn't need Apple's help anymore and the issue was dropped from the public's eye.
I don't remember Apple ever saying that it was impossible for them to do it, just that they didn't want to. It was always kind of assumed that they could , by eg signing a malicious OS update without PIN code retry limits, so the FBI could brute force it at their leisure, or something similar.
> they could, by eg signing a malicious OS update
They successfully argued in court that being forced to insert code the government wanted would be equivalent to compelled speech, in violation of the first amendment.
As the Feds often do, they dropped the case instead of allowing it to set a precedent they didn't want.