16 ms·
Jan Koum: “I couldn't agree more with everything [Apple] said”
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- soviettoly 11y agoOne of the founders of WhatsApp
- wesleytodd 11y agoIs this someone I should know about?
- soviettoly 11y agoOne of the founders of WhatsApp
- wesleytodd 11y agoThanks!
- munchbunny 11y agoI noticed several people asking, and was wondering myself: Jan Koum is one of the WhatsApp cofounders.
- sarciszewski 11y agoThat makes a lot more sense. His Facebook profile didn't indicate anything about his background.
- chetanahuja 11y agoWhatsapp and it's founders are famous for avoiding drawing any attention towards themselves and their company. There offices in Mountain View didn't even have any signage outside (even to identify them as one of the tenants in the building) right up to the time they were acquired by Facebook. Looks like things haven't changed much since the acquisition.
- gry 11y agoJan Koum is a WhatsApp co-founder. WhatsApp is notable, I think, in this debate specifically because WhatsApp partnered with Moxie's Open Whisper Systems for end-to-end encryption. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8624212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8624212
- unfunco 11y agoWhatsApp is still closed-source though, and I'm unsure as to the veracity of the claim of end-to-end encryption, I sure hope that's the case. In the Panorama documentary about Edward Snowden on the BBC, when discussing the death of Lee Rigby, a representative of Facebook says they're capable of decrypting messages (whether that applies to WhatsApp or just Facebook messenger is not clarified.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjVxqlncS2I&t=46m15s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjVxqlncS2I&t=46m15s (also see 49:00+)
- envy2 11y agoYou might be interested in this set of videos[1] of public testimony by WhatsApp's Deputy General Counsel at a hearing on cybercrime in Brazil in December 2015, where he explains in some detail the type of information they have and don't have. He explicitly notes that they are incapable of accessing message content for end-to-end encrypted messages, and also explains that they don't retain copies of any communications once they've been delivered to recipients. [1] http://www2.camara.leg.br/atividade-legislativa/comissoes/comissoes-temporarias/parlamentar-de-inquerito/55a-legislatura/cpi-crimes-ciberneticos/videoArquivo?codSessao=55221&codReuniao=42467#videoTitulo http://www2.camara.leg.br/atividade-legislativa/comissoes/co...
- envy2 11y agoJan Koum is WhatsApp's co-founder and current CEO, and a Facebook board member. I had this in the original title but it seems to have gotten removed—sorry!
- zepto 11y agoWill Google step forward too?
- AngrySkillzz 11y agoI doubt it. Google has shown little spine so far in standing up to the intelligence community or in securing user data. They spent some legal money to defend Appelbaum and encrypted GMail data in transit between data centers, but that's all that comes to mind. Standing with Cook would be a good step for them but I'm not optimistic.
- livingparadox 11y agoI'm not sure if we're just seeing different headlines or what, but I've usually seen Google at the frontlines whenever the government oversteps its bounds in data-vacuuming.
- samstave 11y agoUnsure: Google 'appeared' to have a negative reaction to the NSA jacking their inter DC lines which at the time were not encryoted. Google will not make public claims on their infra regardless Google may stand up to the .gov but it may choose to be more quiet. Anyone that stands up to the police-state-mentality is honorable. The situation we have now is fucked. Its not "Armageddon" or anything - but the situation is fucked. Do you have any idea how many people at places like goog and fb and appl are very progressive - dont give a shit about pot, molly, lsd etc as they have all been partying and have had growth experiences due to this? a fucking ton. It is disingenuous for these companies and their employees to not have the balls to stand up to the government's over reaching BS. EXCEPT that they all share a tenuous thread of "employment status" with a corporation... thus they dont speak up. Hey Obama, you smoked pot, (That was the point), so release anyone who has ever gone to jail for pot -- or go to jail yourself? so tired of this hypocrisy
- pdkl95 11y ago> The situation we have now is fucked. This situation should have ended 20 years ago with the first round of the crypto wars. /sigh/ > Anyone that stands up to the police-state-mentality is honorable. Exactly. They aren't alone, either - with Apple taking first-mover risk, it should be easier for others to stand up together. It's important to realize that there isn't much neutral ground here. Now that the line has been drawn, you're either helping implement backdoors or you are making a stand, potentially at personal risk. Collaborators will not find much cover if they attempt to hide behind a Nuremberg Defense. I strongly recommend that everybody watch Quinn Norton and Elanor Saitta's amazing talk from 30c3, "No Neutral Ground in a Burning World"[1]. Most people didn't ask for the responsibility, but it's irresponsible to avoid it by pretending that technology is somehow external to politics. Everything we implement has political consequences, and we (the people implementing all of modern technology) need to start thinking about those consequences. [1] https://media.ccc.de/v/30C3_-_5491_-_en_-_saal_1_-_201312272300_-_no_neutral_ground_in_a_burning_world_-_quinn_norton_-_eleanor_saitta https://media.ccc.de/v/30C3_-_5491_-_en_-_saal_1_-_201312272...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- pbasista 11y agoWhat is suspicious about this Cook's statement is that he was able to publish it. I believe this kind of government requests is usually made with a strong non-disclosure agreement with severe consequences if disclosed. So, either the consequences were not that bad or Apple has chosen to ignore them for the good cause. Or ... something "fishy" is going on and this article is just a bait by Apple to let its customers believe they do care about privacy ... while in reality the situation might be entirely different. And the "best" thing is that ordinary people will never know for sure, because with Apple's proprietary software philosophy, there is no way to tell.
- envy2 11y agoSorry, this isn't "suspicious": there is a publicly available court order[1] issued by the US District Court for the Central District of California for Apple to comply with, which you could have found in 15 seconds of Googling. This was not a FISA warrant or National Security Letter. [1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001-SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2714001-SB-Shooter-O...
- taneq 11y agoJust playing devil's advocate here (and I'm in no way full bottle on U.S. law) but from other posts here, one of the most contentious points about national security letters is the very strict gag order that is usually attached to them. Yes, there's a publicly available court order. How would you know there isn't also an NSL?
- cmyr 11y agoThis wasn't a national security letter; the request comes from a judge on a circuit court, as part of a regular pre-trail ruling in a 'normal' criminal trial. Nothing about this is unusual.
- schoen 11y agos/circuit/district/
- ryanSrich 11y agoI really respect Jan. I saw him talk at Startup School a few years ago and what really impressed me was his non-traditional path to becoming a tech billionaire. He had a long career at Yahoo! before founding WhatsApp. He's a role model we should be looking at. Not young college kids who can dupe old investors into giving them millions for vaporware. It's also important that he's speaking out in opposition to these government tactics. Hopefully Zuckerberg will follow suit but if history tells us anything it's that Facebook is rather compliant and doesn't take security seriously.
- renaudg 11y agoif history tells us anything it's that Facebook is rather compliant and doesn't take security seriously. Citation needed...
- ryanSrich 11y agohttp://www.boston.com/news/nation/2015/08/12/harvard-student-loses-facebook-internship-after-pointing-out-privacy-flaws/zASZFdUjn6PoliUiR9kVHJ/story.html http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2015/08/12/harvard-student... http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/facebook-security-wall-mark-zuckerberg_n_3779228.html http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/facebook-security-wall-mark-z... http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2015/12/17/facebook-instagram-security-research-threats/#7b320e2f2d82 http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2015/12/17/facebo... http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-security-flaw-leaks-private-photos-2015-3?r=UK&IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-security-flaw-leaks-... http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims... https://facebook.com/safety/groups/law/guidelines/ https://facebook.com/safety/groups/law/guidelines/
- lazzlazzlazz 11y agoThese individual cases happen for every tech company.
- akerro 11y ago
- redthrow 11y agoWhatsApp doesn't seem very secure: As of December 1, 2015, WhatsApp has a score of 2 out of 7 points on the Electronic Frontier Foundation's secure messaging scorecard. It has received points for having communications encrypted in transit and having completed an independent security audit. It is missing points because communications are not encrypted with a key the provider doesn't have access to, users can't verify contacts' identities, past messages are not secure if the encryption keys are stolen, the code is not open to independent review, and the security design is not properly documented https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp
- tprynn 11y agoThe EFF score card is an embarrassment which is essentially equivalent to one of those "comparison table of our competitors" on a SaaS website. That's a good analogy for it, because it uses the same questionable metrics and even more questionable ranking system that one of those tables would use. The score card gives Signal the same ranking as Cryptocat - that's an instant negative result for its usefulness.
- redthrow 11y ago> Signal the same ranking as Cryptocat You are probably right that getting a high score on the scorecard doesn't guarantee a secure program. (The standard of the socrecard is not high.) But can't you still argue that getting a low score on the scorecard would probably mean it's not a secure app?
- dijit 11y agoEFF scorecard isn't meant to measure "how secure" an app is, it's supposed to measure how secure and free the application could potentially be. Having key's held by the creator is a sure way to undermine any security model, having externally auditable code is a measure to ensure people can independently verify if code is secure or not (or if it's taking a carbon copy for it's creators) etc;
- suprgeek 11y agoThis specific encryption debate is THE TURNING POINT around this debate. The NSA has [most likely] found a way to penetrate Apple/Google/MS/FB for specific targets i.e. they can get the info on any specific person/group covertly. The attack surface is just too large - TAO, Zero-Days, Insider threats, Financial threats, etc. The problem with that is things like needing "Parallel Construction [1]" to legally prosecute. What the FBI is now doing is using a recent horrible tragedy to force SV companies to establish a precedent. Make no mistake, this has been long time coming. The Feds want to set a precedent both legal and 'cultural'. Ultimately Apple might cave, but the fact that they are raising a stink is very good news. Time for other heavyweights to join the chorus. [1] http://thefreethoughtproject.com/parallel-construction-law-enforcement-illegally-collected-evidence-criminal-prosecutions/ http://thefreethoughtproject.com/parallel-construction-law-e...
- dclowd9901 11y agoIt's gotta be so frustrating. Here's this little thing that could answer all your questions, maybe. If you could just open it, you could easily solve many mysteries. And the only people who can help won't. I don't envy the job of law enforcement. It must feel like at times that everyone is standing in your way. But where does it stop? If only we could track everyone all the time... If only we could watch everyone in their homes all the time... If only we could open everyone's safes whenever we needed to... Yes, you could solve many mysteries with all of the keys. But it's not your information. You're not owed it. No one is owed the answer to any question. I hope law enforcement understands someday what a destructive request they've made, but I'm guessing like anything else addictive, that one taste will just lead to more.
- rconti 11y agoMany of us often complain that our jobs would be much easier if only. This is a reminder to step back and realize that, sometimes, your job isn't supposed to be easy. Your goals are not necessarily your entire organization's goals, nor the entire nation or world's goals.
- nickik 11y agoA programmer complaining about bureaucracy usually does not have the same moral high ground. Thats probably the difference. Nobody in society complains when the newest feature of your Webapp is delayed but when when its about crime and terror, its different. Thats where they are coming from. It totally disagree but thats how many people see it (I would guess).
- akerro 11y agoWhy should I trust a company that works with NSA and makes money on information about me to protect my privacy and "fight" government. I see his post as nothing more than PR move - "we're the good guys" - before we find out that they cooperated with agencies. Am I alone in this opinion?
- Tepix 11y agoHis company also makes money by earning the trust of their customers. If they lose that trust, it has the potential to be a great financial loss.
- rogersmith 11y agoYeah, remember when users stopped using Facebook, Google et al in droves after the whole PRISM debacle, they still haven't financially recovered from that one, have they?
- ionised 11y agoPeople use Facebook despite not trusting them.
- akerro 11y agoIt's a corporation that's a point of living is making profit and selling overpriced stuff. It's government job to take care of people and give them safety, privacy and protect them from illegal and harmful practices of corporations.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- meerita 11y agoImagine if Donald Trump reaches the White House what would happen. I bet an scenario of much more hardcore surveillance.
- raverbashing 11y agoWhat do you mean by 'more hardcore'? Also, more surveillance means also more noise
- philip142au 11y agoand Microsoft said?