3 ms·
"Critics are quick to point out that if a user is not paying for a product, they are the product, and of course encrypting notifications from Facebook won't sto
by yoasif_ 11y ago
"Critics are quick to point out that if a user is not paying for a product, they are the product, and of course encrypting notifications from Facebook won't stop the social media behemoth from accessing all the data itself. The only way to protect one's data from Facebook is to stop using Facebook."
http://readwrite.com/2015/06/03/facebook-pgp-encryption http://readwrite.com/2015/06/03/facebook-pgp-encryption
- pdkl95 11y agohttps://projectbullrun.org/surveillance/2015/video-2015.html#balkan https://projectbullrun.org/surveillance/2015/video-2015.html... Aral Balkan's talk is a highly effective explanation of this problem. Of course, it's not that popular here given how it exposes the "big data"/"free" malware that is popular in Silicon Valley. Just look at the apparatchik in this thread, talking about features when they should be talking about how to set up a proper federated (and encrypted) protocol. Why else would Google disable many of the features of XMPP federation? Allowing federated XMPP servers wouldn't give them the surveillance data.
- briandh 11y agoGiven the context, mtgx is most likely referring to Facebook-owned WhatsApp's (somewhat opaque) support for end-to-end encryption.