11–20 of 305 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With Fully Homomorphic Encryption it's nobody elses. The basic idea of of the project is to remove the need for trust.
It's google. They are good at engineering. Not at creating trust. After the bizillionth time they have broken trust, there is no need for benefit of the doubt.
It sounds neat, but I do wonder how viable this is commercially. How high do we rate the chances that governments around the world will step in before another kind of E2E is rolled out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With Fully Homomorphic Encryption it's nobody elses. The basic idea of of the project is to remove the need for trust.
It's google. They are good at engineering. Not at creating trust. After the bizillionth time they have broken trust, there is no need for benefit of the doubt.
I'd expect this to be something like the Google Ad ID: technically separated from what Google considers personal information, but trivially easy to tie back to an individual person and to other information about that person.
They're continually breaking trust by illegally scraping up the internet to feed to their plagiarism machine, which they are now asking us to trust with more data. It's not a compelling arguement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With Fully Homomorphic Encryption it's nobody elses. The basic idea of of the project is to remove the need for trust.
It's google. They are good at engineering. Not at creating trust. After the bizillionth time they have broken trust, there is no need for benefit of the doubt.
So I take offense to the term FHE. It's a oxymoron.
The whole thing immidiatly stands out as a sham to build trust where it's gone.
Proper encryption means the ciphertext is indistinguishable from noise. So...in order to be able to process on it, you have to make it not indistinguishable from noise. So I take offense to the term FHE. It's a oxymoron. The whole thing immidiatly stands out as a sham to build trust where it's gone.
Encryption or not, if it's on somebody else's server, it isn't yours. I don't believe Google has my best interest.
If you don’t agree with this model, I’m afraid modern cryptography doesn’t have anything to offer.
One flaw with FHE is that it guarantees only that you need the key to see the inputs or outputs of the computation, but not necessarily that the computation is the one you want. For example, the computation could be adversarial for certain inputs, or an adversary could insert their own computation first (or last).
Proper encryption means the ciphertext is indistinguishable from noise. So...in order to be able to process on it, you have to make it not indistinguishable from noise. So I take offense to the term FHE. It's a oxymoron. The whole thing immidiatly stands out as a sham to build trust where it's gone.
I don’t see why you conclude that FHE couldn’t be close to as secure as that. (Like, not information theoretically, but with computationally bounded adversaries.)