Removed by mod
So… they only warn people about how insecure texting is after someone else exploits it…
Abusive parents: “Only I get to beat my children!”
I’m 100% not one of those “I have nothing to hide” people, but I don’t text about “things I want to hide” already FFS. In this case if the chinese gov or us gov really want to know about my plan to go get a costco hotdog with my friend later, fine, I don’t like it but also “whatever.” It’s not like I’m texting about federal crimes or government secrets, that’s what Matrix is for.
The only thing I don’t like is being forced to use texts for 2fa on shit websites that won’t except a yubikey (or flipper0-u2f, in my case) which seems to be most sites using 2fa ime.
“I have nothing to hide, I just question your judgement and motives.”
In a world entirely populated by empathetic, decent, and sane people we wouldn’t need much privacy. Unfortunately that’s not the world we live in. There are countless unstable, stupid, and evil people in the world – some of them are in positions of power or might achieve power in the future. They are absolutely the sort to weaponize “harmless” information against you.
Do you want those people to know your sexual preferences, political leanings, etc?
That’s the thing, I don’t really text about that stuff because texting is inherently insecure. Hell I’d sooner email about it if I can get someone set up with pgp than text, and email is insecure too.
But until someone can convince my mom, dad, aunt, job, etc to use Matrix, I’ll always have to use SMS in some capacity. I hope someone can, I’ve tried to no avail. I was close with a few using Signal but with the removal of sms support they stopped, and the iPhone ones barely used it a week before switching back because “they don’t want to have to use two apps” even before that because they still had to use imessage to talk to most of their contacts.
So yeah, I’m left with “don’t text about sensitive subjects.”
Just get an iPhone
– Tim Apple
US 2010: “We’ve created and incentivised this gigantic drag net of information based on insecure protocols, private partnership deals, FISA court orders, and outright black budget illegality”
US 2024: “Pweeze use encrypted communication (that we have vendor relations with or that we have backdoors in or that we built as a honey pot) because China can see what’s happening in the drag net and they can leverage that information to compromise our idiot elites.”
The mobile standard setter, GSMA, and Google have said encryption will be coming to RCS, but there’s no firm date yet.
GSMA, please don’t come up with yet another poorly designed encryption standard.
The IETF is already working on Messaging Layer Security (MLS), please work with IETF and adopt MLS. IETF have more experience and do a good job at designing secure protocols. And multiple organisations and services are already working on adapting MLS (Mozilla, Google, Matrix, Wire, …)
Who said the Encryption is allowed to be secure?
Well, I’m stuck on a Verizon plan, so my SMS don’t send anyways.
If cyberterrorists really want to know who’s gonna be late to my D&D game and what food we’re having, I guess there’s no way we’re gonna stop 'em. I blame Kamala’s weak campaign.
Going back to the roots with the Finger Protocol.
OK. then photos of steganographed kittens
Instructions ignored, sending spectrogram from Aaron Funk’s “Look”
I wonder what they would be saying if they’d been allowed to weaken encryption and back-door the fuck out of everything before the Salt Typhoon folks got involved.
AFAIK more people in the US use iPhones than Androids, but that is taken care of since iMessage is encrypted (correct me on this, I haven’t sent an iMessage to anyone since I got my SM-A536B).
Is this advice everyone should take, or just USA people?
I’ve been trying to get my wife to use signal for years and she. just. doesn’t. wanna. do. it.
Author recommends a meta owned company for text messaging.
Lol.
The loophole in WhatsApp’s end-to-end encryption is simple: The recipient of any WhatsApp message can flag it. Once flagged, the message is copied on the recipient’s device and sent as a separate message to Facebook for review.
That practically applies to every form of digital communication. Sender/recipient has it on their end unencrypted and passes/leaks it on elsewhere
Once a review ticket arrives in WhatsApp’s system, it is fed automatically into a “reactive” queue for human contract workers to assess. AI algorithms also feed the ticket into “proactive” queues that process unencrypted metadata—including names and profile images of the user’s groups, phone number, device fingerprinting, related Facebook and Instagram accounts, and more.
Does this also happen?
Fucking woof…
Please elucidate.
Just indicating that the steps taken that you mentioned are far beyond what most people would imagine as expected behavior for encrypted messaging software. Assuming your quote was published somewhere, as being about WhatsApp. I might’ve misunderstood.
It’s from the article I posted in my comment above. The same article I the comment above me cherry picked their comment from.
It was just a variant of “woah!”, in response to what you posted. I apologize if it came off as something different.
Pretty sure the more user / privacy friendly options prevent screenshots or copying from an encrypted chat, and also allow the participants to delete their messages after they were read or even a set time.
prevent screenshots or copying from an encrypted chat
Aside from the obvious analog hole, that’s only possible if the user’s device cooperates, which is never guaranteed.
There is no way to send messages to someone’s device and guarantee they won’t provide them to a third party. Technology can’t force an untrustworthy person to keep your secrets.
Signal does not attempt to stop me from taking screenshots, and all chats on Signal are encrypted.
You have some good points. I’m curious about the scenario where you need encrypted communications with an untrusted party.
I guess if you are leaking insider information to the press and need to be anonymous, but then use an anonymous account. Why would you need to send information to someone but not trust them to use the information responsibly?
Restricting screenshots is laughable security. If you can read a message then you can take a picture with a second device, there isn’t any software that can stop that.
Preventing screenshots can stop accidents and make someone think twice about it, and disappearing messages prevents returning later and looking them up, but that’s it.
Well yes obviously nobody can prevent the recipient from taking a picture of the screen with a second device or writing down manually what the message said.
No system is foolproof, but those features are definitely miles ahead of anything meta provides, since they dont actually want those chats to be encrypted. They want that data, it is their business model.
The same FBI that keeps telling Congress end to end encryption needs to have legally mandated back doors in it?
“our backdoors, not theirs”
(of course, they always fail to acknowledge the simple fact that “ours” becomes “everybody’s”)
holy shit! the FBI is communist?! cool, cool.
The very same
They want access, they just don’t want china to have access. Of course, when you add a backdoor it’s best to assume everyone will use it sooner or later.
☝️
If China’s access to your data were actually a high priority to the US security state, then they wouldn’t be installing these back doors. They’re much more interested in 1) accessing your data and 2) convincing you that China is your enemy.The US security state isn’t interested your security, they’re interested in what the capitalists are interested in: imperialism and screwing over the working class.
Of course, when you add a backdoor it’s best to assume everyone will use it sooner or later.
Its true!! I saw several really interesting documentaries about this phenomenon on PornHub
Wow, I didn’t know the Git host is providing documentaries too now, sweet 😋
