14 ms·

From what is written, I understand this to mean that users can select this feature for specific conversations. That not all messages are subject to this encrypt

by alva 10y ago

From what is written, I understand this to mean that users can select this feature for specific conversations. That not all messages are subject to this encryption. I am not usually one for paranoia, but is anyone else becoming more suspicious about Facebooks motivations and involvement with gov? This feature is a massive boost for intelligence services dealing with unsophisticated actors. This reduces the haystack significantly, by users self flagging messages that may be incriminating. Multi-millions of FB messages must be sent every day, brute-forcing encryption on all of these is probably not possible. A small % marked as 'secret conversation'? Much easier. Why doesn't FB just apply encryption on all messages? Surely they have the resources avail. Is it because this feature makes somebody else's job a lot easier? If my suspicions are correct, what sort of threats would this pick up. Are serious threats likely to use FB messages with 'secret conversation' flagged to co-ordinate actions?

yoz-y 10y ago
They have taken exactly the same approach as Google with the Allo service. This is most probably done because people want to use Chat Bots and services and these do not work with E2E encryption. Well they could work but it would be dishonest branding as the messages would leak.
- nxzero 10y ago
  >> "Chat Bots and services and these do not work with E2E encryption" It might be true that FB adding E2E breaks existing bots, but it's false that it breaks that ability to use bots on FB.
  - yoz-y 10y ago
    It could work but as I said it would be dishonest. If a bot can read your messages then you have to trust a third party to not leak/store them. I believe that he goal of E2E encryption is to remove the need to trust somebody. (Of course you still have to trust FB that they do not backdoor or hinder the encryption but you do not have to trust the third parties)
    - nxzero 10y ago
      With a chatbot you are chatting with the bot. All the bot needs to is be able to use the Signal E2E protocol to establish key & message exchanges. Nothing dishonest about this and nothing different than existing bots other than one uses E2E and one does not.
      - yoz-y 10y ago
        I do not speak of chatbots such as Cleverbot. For example your bot will listen to your messages and provide contextual information, such as theatres airing a movie you are currently talking about. The bot also probably needs to keep track of the context, which probably means keeping the chat history for some time. In order to learn the chatbot needs to keep the history forever and scan it for ML purposes. All of these mean that the bot has to keep the history somewhere unencrypted, basically nullifying the benefit of E2E.
ArnoldP 10y ago
I think the more likely scenario is they know the value of the conversations they datamine, but don't want to lose customers to these other message apps that tout their encryption. So they do the bare minimum to support encryption while still having access to most data.
- alva 10y ago
  This does seem a likely scenario. Unfortunately all the stories of over the last few years have severely eroded the benefit of doubt that I give these companies, which is a great shame. I imagine others due to this, approach similar moves with great suspicious.
- evgen 10y ago
  Over here in the real world, Facebook does not need to worry about "[losing] customers to these other message apps that tout their encryption" because the latter are not even in the game. There are only a few messaging apps that matter, because the value of the app is in its network and who it can connect you to rather than some feature checklist for the HN crowd. Dropping secure E2E encryption into an app that is deployed on hundreds of millions of phones across the globe is a game changer. Period. Once you climb down from your lofty ivory tower and consider the impact this will have globally then perhaps you you will be a bit less dismissive of the goals and efforts of the team that convinced a company that lives on data to delierately blind itself to some for the sake of their users privacy and security.
  - ArnoldP 10y ago
    If barely anyone uses it then how is it a game changer? Please update us in a few months with usage statistics.
    - dymk 10y ago
      I can't tell if you've deliberately misinterpreted evgen's comment or not. But this feature is being deployed to hundreds of millions of phones. Even if only 1% of people use this, that's millions more people using E2E secured communication. Hardly "barely anyone".
napoleond 10y ago
> Why doesn't FB just apply encryption on all messages? The same reason Gmail can't work with end-to-end encryption--they want to advertise at you based on message content. I highly doubt there is any government intervention in FB's business strategy, but there seems to be plenty of cooperation after the business decisions are made. (The same is largely true with Microsoft, Google, and yes, even Apple.) It's not really a conspiracy, or a matter of paranoia--it's been very widely reported for a while now, and people just generally don't seem to give a shit (myself increasingly included). EDIT: I do care. But I think (a) people need to take privacy into their own hands, since companies will never be incentivized to do it and (b) we've entered a new cultural era, where the levels of privacy enjoyed in the past are no longer socially normal.
- davb 10y ago
  > The same reason Gmail can't work with end-to-end encryption--they want to advertise at you based on message content. I wonder how they'd do if they were more open about it. "You're getting Gmail for free because we read your email and advertise to you. However, if you want to pay for a premium account (or Google Apps for Work) then we won't advertise to you, won't read your email and we'll even make end-to-end encryption easy and convenient". I mean, it seems like a good compromise. I'd be happier with the rampant advertising and profiling going on if it was only for signed-in users and everyone was given the choice - use it for free or pay and get guaranteed privacy and no ads.
  - blahi 10y ago
    The wording "we read your email" isn't quite accurate. There is nobody at google who goes through davb's emails one by one.
    - merpnderp 10y ago
      Yeah, worse, he's being scored by highly imperfect algorithms.
      - 10y ago
envy2 10y ago
While it might be disappointing, I firmly believe this is a technical and business decision, not a conspiracy. If you look at the features Messenger offers, and the direction the product has been moving, it relies heavily on server-side technology. Facebook have added contextual ride-share ordering, person-to-person payments, bots, etc. Unlike WhatsApp or Signal, Messenger also still works over the Web without an app or a smartphone-based login: how do you implement credible E2E over the Web, without using the phone as a crutch? How do you allow multi-device support, with a message history, and do E2E on all conversations? I think they've (rightly, IMO) assessed that most people value those features and convenience over 100% E2E conversations, but want to offer the option to those who don't. Besides, if Facebook were really completely in bed with the surveillance state, why would they have just rolled out full E2E on WhatsApp?
- newscracker 10y ago
  > Unlike WhatsApp or Signal, Messenger also still works over the Web without an app or a smartphone-based login: how do you implement credible E2E over the Web, without using the phone as a crutch? How do you allow multi-device support, with a message history, and do E2E on all conversations? Wire [1] does multi-device E2E encryption, sync of message history and allows users to use phone numbers and email addresses as identifiers. It also uses the Signal protocol. Note: I do not work for Wire nor am I associated with it in any way, except as a user. I discovered it only recently and am trying it out, in addition to using Telegram as my most frequent client and Signal. [1]: wire.com
sweis 10y ago
Hi. To move all messages to be E2E encrypted, we need credible solution for web clients and every other platform, including old feature phones. This is easier said than done, but is something we are thinking about. Secret Conversations is a step in the right direction.
- wyldfire 10y ago
  "feature phones" sounds like newspeak. Why are they called that? If anything I'd think they'd be called "lack-of-feature-phones".
  - tedunangst 10y ago
    Because "phone" is the primary feature. Phone-feature phone sounds silly. You can say lack of features phone if you like, most people prefer shorter phrases.
  - nocarrier 10y ago
    Feature phone is actually oldspeak. It's what we called cell phones with features back when most cell phones didn't have features. Then smartphones came along and reset the expectations for what features a phone has, leaving feature phones in the dust. But there was a time where feature phone meant something positive.
  - nbevans 10y ago
    Sold based on features, rather than sold for being based on a particular platform. That's what it means.
- StavrosK 10y ago
  I think people underestimate just how ludicrously hard it is to provide an encrypted experience that's as good as plaintext. Even showing a chat on multiple devices becomes a hard problem. I agree with you that it's a step in the right direction, and Viber and Whatsapp have a much easier problem to solve, given that both only support device-to-device messaging. The only app that supports multi-device chats that I know of is Silent Phone, but I admit to not being very up to date with the instant messaging landscape.
matt_wulfeck 10y ago
n excellent point, however I will add to your thinking that we want our government to be able to eavesdrop on conversation provided it's done constitutionally, with probably cause, in an open court and with a warrant. If we can't get those things then it's pointless to fight back with encryption. We must have our constitutional protections.
- matt_wulfeck 10y ago
  I'm sad I'm being downvoted. Our generation needs to learn it can't solve all of its problems with a screen in front of its face all of the time. A lot of this technology is enslaving us. Piling it higher and deeper isn't the solution.
Techbrunch 10y ago
Reasons from @alexstamos (CSO @ Facebook): - FBM is multi-device, and we'd like to see E2E usability improve to support this. For now, pick one device and keys never leave it - Secret conversations don't currently support popular features like searching message history, switching devices, voice/video, etc - Hundreds of millions use Messenger from a web browser. No secure way to verify code or store keys without routing through mobile. "We don't want to disrupt people's current experience." Source: https://twitter.com/alexstamos https://twitter.com/alexstamos
- arximboldi 10y ago
  Hundreds of millions use Messenger from a web browser. No secure way to verify code or store keys without routing through mobile. I wouldn't use the web version if they had not disabled Jabber access... and then I could use OTR. This trend makes me very sad... IM networks are getting more centralized as ever. I don't feel thankful for this kind of development. End-to-end encryption should not be a feature of the service provider, but the client. The way this works with Whatsapp/FB/Google just requires us to believe that their proprietary client is actually doing what it promises. And for me that I don't have a smartphone they just don't even promise anything. I just wish I could use XMPP or Matrix with my non-nerdy friends. There was this time Google seemed to not be evil with GTalk/XMPP, but then... The business cynicism that dominates this industry, allowing people to claim that they "connect people" at the same time that they put everyone in digital prisons, makes me really want to leave computing and go live in a cave.
  - rvense 10y ago
    I honestly find this centralization as worrying as mass surveillance itself. I'm as afraid of the Facebooks of this world as I am of any government, and I don't want all my communication locked in with one company. This is why I will not use or recommend Signal. Moxie's anti-federation stance is unacceptable to me. It's replacing one problem with another.
    - bogomipz 10y ago
maxerickson 10y ago
Am I confused? Isn't it impossible to brute force a single properly encrypted message? (where properly means that the protocol and implementation are sound and so on)
- softawre 10y ago
  This makes a lot of assumptions, like the NSA hasn't broken algorithms we consider secure, that they're not somehow sharing keys, or using a gimped algorithm on purpose, etc.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Sure, but those assumptions are implicit in the statement I replied to Multi-millions of FB messages must be sent every day, brute-forcing encryption on all of these is probably not possible. A small % marked as 'secret conversation'? Much easier. If you don't trust Facebook, you don't need to evaluate the quality of their implementation of secret messaging, you just shouldn't use it.
  - Ar-Curunir 10y ago
    NSA mostly likely hasn't broken AES or ECC. And the rest of the arguments don't apply in this case; the parent was talking about hope having a few users use encryption makes it easier for Facebook to compromise security. Using gimped algorithms or sharing keys would affect both scenarios equally.
tptacek 10y ago
Given what modern science knows about mathematics and computer science, you cannot brute-force decrypt messages encrypted by Signal Protocol. Not millions, not hundreds, not tens, not even one.
ris 10y ago
"brute-forcing encryption on all of these is probably not possible. A small % marked as 'secret conversation'? Much easier." They probably wouldn't have to brute-force them. Backdooring's still quite possible - the NSA are perfectly capable of compelling Facebook to install a keylogger in their app.
bertil 10y ago
> I am not usually one for paranoia, but is anyone else becoming more suspicious about Facebooks motivations and involvement with gov? I worked for Facebook; I am friends with the people who developed this: I would like to reassure you strongly (well, as much as an Internet stranger can) on their motives. They are the good guys, and this was develop with people being spied on by abusive governments in mind — because those people use Messenger and would like to do it for those conversations too. Don’t trust me, but reach out to them if you are curious: few people appreciate their work, so they are generally happy to talk (about published work; unannounced products are very much off limits). Facebook does collaborate with governments when the messages are not encrypted and the crimes are clear, and the court issued warrants. I seriously doubt any of those are political dissidents. Facebook engineers receive very generous poaching offers all the time, and they would have minimal economic damage from leaving the company over something like this. The shit-show from engineers leaving over that would massive (and many engineers are true believers). I wasn’t in the company six months ago when that project was decided, but from my experience of the internal culture, I know that there was a debate on whether this feature could cover crimes that Facebook would object to — and the need for protecting the good guys obviously had the upper hand. > Why doesn't FB just apply encryption on all messages? > Surely they have the resources avail. Scaling. I know nothing about this, but I have no doubt that this is the main reason. Any tiny amount of extra memory, computation, etc. times a billion becomes massive. Facebook struggles building enough capacity for all its services: the data center expansions you hear about are done a break-neck pace, to meet service expansion deadlines. The engineers working on this are heroes internally, and the units they use are unheard of outside of astronomy. More specifically, they probably want to test some scaling aspects, but it might be unethical to use the usual approach of A/B testing.
- nocarrier 10y ago
  I'm former FB Infra and agree with your first point re: motives. There's a lot of true believers working in the security space at Facebook, and I have tons of respect for them. I used to work closely with many of them. However, scaling and/or capacity is not the reason E2E encryption isn't applied on all messages. The crypto operations are relatively trivial in terms of cpu. This comment summarizes what FB's CSO said about why they are not launching E2E broadly yet. It boils down to usability concerns. Sounds like they are working on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12055567 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12055567
libeclipse 10y ago
Brute-forcing is infeasible. The meta-data is certainly visible however, so intelligence agencies could glean a lot of information about certain users from other sources. You're right that "private conversations" does throw up a red flag.
djsumdog 10y ago
It's like the entire world forgot about PRISM.
- ipozgaj 10y ago
  Because the whole story was bs? Zuckerberg himself commented on that https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10100828955847631 https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10100828955847631
  - dandelion_lover 10y ago
    Do you honestly believe in his words?
  - djsumdog 10y ago
    I agree. I hate how everyone trusted the Snowden story without question. It's pretty much US sponsored propaganda. I doubt Snowden is even in Russia.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rhizome 10y ago
Multi-millions of FB messages must be sent every day, brute-forcing encryption on all of these is probably not possible It's kind of a Hobson's Choice. You can message in the clear, or you can encrypt your messages and the government can keep your messages forever. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130620/15390323549/nsa-has-convinced-fisa-court-that-if-your-data-is-encrypted-you-might-be-terrorist-so-itll-hang-onto-your-data.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130620/15390323549/nsa-h...
c_c_c 10y ago
You answered your own question. No, serious threats do not use Facebook Messenger. The reason it's limited deploy is technical (for now) not caging. Metadata is more important than content. They will always have the metadata.

by alva 10y ago

yoz-y 10y ago

They have taken exactly the same approach as Google with the Allo service. This is most probably done because people want to use Chat Bots and services and these do not work with E2E encryption. Well they could work but it would be dishonest branding as the messages would leak.

nxzero 10y ago
>> "Chat Bots and services and these do not work with E2E encryption" It might be true that FB adding E2E breaks existing bots, but it's false that it breaks that ability to use bots on FB.
- yoz-y 10y ago
  It could work but as I said it would be dishonest. If a bot can read your messages then you have to trust a third party to not leak/store them. I believe that he goal of E2E encryption is to remove the need to trust somebody. (Of course you still have to trust FB that they do not backdoor or hinder the encryption but you do not have to trust the third parties)
  - nxzero 10y ago
    With a chatbot you are chatting with the bot. All the bot needs to is be able to use the Signal E2E protocol to establish key & message exchanges. Nothing dishonest about this and nothing different than existing bots other than one uses E2E and one does not.
    - yoz-y 10y ago
      I do not speak of chatbots such as Cleverbot. For example your bot will listen to your messages and provide contextual information, such as theatres airing a movie you are currently talking about. The bot also probably needs to keep track of the context, which probably means keeping the chat history for some time. In order to learn the chatbot needs to keep the history forever and scan it for ML purposes. All of these mean that the bot has to keep the history somewhere unencrypted, basically nullifying the benefit of E2E.

ArnoldP 10y ago

I think the more likely scenario is they know the value of the conversations they datamine, but don't want to lose customers to these other message apps that tout their encryption. So they do the bare minimum to support encryption while still having access to most data.

alva 10y ago
This does seem a likely scenario. Unfortunately all the stories of over the last few years have severely eroded the benefit of doubt that I give these companies, which is a great shame. I imagine others due to this, approach similar moves with great suspicious.
evgen 10y ago
Over here in the real world, Facebook does not need to worry about "[losing] customers to these other message apps that tout their encryption" because the latter are not even in the game. There are only a few messaging apps that matter, because the value of the app is in its network and who it can connect you to rather than some feature checklist for the HN crowd. Dropping secure E2E encryption into an app that is deployed on hundreds of millions of phones across the globe is a game changer. Period. Once you climb down from your lofty ivory tower and consider the impact this will have globally then perhaps you you will be a bit less dismissive of the goals and efforts of the team that convinced a company that lives on data to delierately blind itself to some for the sake of their users privacy and security.
- ArnoldP 10y ago
  If barely anyone uses it then how is it a game changer? Please update us in a few months with usage statistics.
  - dymk 10y ago
    I can't tell if you've deliberately misinterpreted evgen's comment or not. But this feature is being deployed to hundreds of millions of phones. Even if only 1% of people use this, that's millions more people using E2E secured communication. Hardly "barely anyone".

napoleond 10y ago

> Why doesn't FB just apply encryption on all messages? The same reason Gmail can't work with end-to-end encryption--they want to advertise at you based on message content. I highly doubt there is any government intervention in FB's business strategy, but there seems to be plenty of cooperation after the business decisions are made. (The same is largely true with Microsoft, Google, and yes, even Apple.) It's not really a conspiracy, or a matter of paranoia--it's been very widely reported for a while now, and people just generally don't seem to give a shit (myself increasingly included). EDIT: I do care. But I think (a) people need to take privacy into their own hands, since companies will never be incentivized to do it and (b) we've entered a new cultural era, where the levels of privacy enjoyed in the past are no longer socially normal.

davb 10y ago
> The same reason Gmail can't work with end-to-end encryption--they want to advertise at you based on message content. I wonder how they'd do if they were more open about it. "You're getting Gmail for free because we read your email and advertise to you. However, if you want to pay for a premium account (or Google Apps for Work) then we won't advertise to you, won't read your email and we'll even make end-to-end encryption easy and convenient". I mean, it seems like a good compromise. I'd be happier with the rampant advertising and profiling going on if it was only for signed-in users and everyone was given the choice - use it for free or pay and get guaranteed privacy and no ads.
- blahi 10y ago
  The wording "we read your email" isn't quite accurate. There is nobody at google who goes through davb's emails one by one.
  - merpnderp 10y ago
    Yeah, worse, he's being scored by highly imperfect algorithms.
    - 10y ago

envy2 10y ago

While it might be disappointing, I firmly believe this is a technical and business decision, not a conspiracy. If you look at the features Messenger offers, and the direction the product has been moving, it relies heavily on server-side technology. Facebook have added contextual ride-share ordering, person-to-person payments, bots, etc. Unlike WhatsApp or Signal, Messenger also still works over the Web without an app or a smartphone-based login: how do you implement credible E2E over the Web, without using the phone as a crutch? How do you allow multi-device support, with a message history, and do E2E on all conversations? I think they've (rightly, IMO) assessed that most people value those features and convenience over 100% E2E conversations, but want to offer the option to those who don't. Besides, if Facebook were really completely in bed with the surveillance state, why would they have just rolled out full E2E on WhatsApp?

newscracker 10y ago
> Unlike WhatsApp or Signal, Messenger also still works over the Web without an app or a smartphone-based login: how do you implement credible E2E over the Web, without using the phone as a crutch? How do you allow multi-device support, with a message history, and do E2E on all conversations? Wire [1] does multi-device E2E encryption, sync of message history and allows users to use phone numbers and email addresses as identifiers. It also uses the Signal protocol. Note: I do not work for Wire nor am I associated with it in any way, except as a user. I discovered it only recently and am trying it out, in addition to using Telegram as my most frequent client and Signal. [1]: wire.com

sweis 10y ago

Hi. To move all messages to be E2E encrypted, we need credible solution for web clients and every other platform, including old feature phones. This is easier said than done, but is something we are thinking about. Secret Conversations is a step in the right direction.

wyldfire 10y ago
"feature phones" sounds like newspeak. Why are they called that? If anything I'd think they'd be called "lack-of-feature-phones".
- tedunangst 10y ago
  Because "phone" is the primary feature. Phone-feature phone sounds silly. You can say lack of features phone if you like, most people prefer shorter phrases.
- nocarrier 10y ago
  Feature phone is actually oldspeak. It's what we called cell phones with features back when most cell phones didn't have features. Then smartphones came along and reset the expectations for what features a phone has, leaving feature phones in the dust. But there was a time where feature phone meant something positive.
- nbevans 10y ago
  Sold based on features, rather than sold for being based on a particular platform. That's what it means.
StavrosK 10y ago
I think people underestimate just how ludicrously hard it is to provide an encrypted experience that's as good as plaintext. Even showing a chat on multiple devices becomes a hard problem. I agree with you that it's a step in the right direction, and Viber and Whatsapp have a much easier problem to solve, given that both only support device-to-device messaging. The only app that supports multi-device chats that I know of is Silent Phone, but I admit to not being very up to date with the instant messaging landscape.

matt_wulfeck 10y ago

n excellent point, however I will add to your thinking that we want our government to be able to eavesdrop on conversation provided it's done constitutionally, with probably cause, in an open court and with a warrant. If we can't get those things then it's pointless to fight back with encryption. We must have our constitutional protections.

matt_wulfeck 10y ago
I'm sad I'm being downvoted. Our generation needs to learn it can't solve all of its problems with a screen in front of its face all of the time. A lot of this technology is enslaving us. Piling it higher and deeper isn't the solution.

Techbrunch 10y ago

Reasons from @alexstamos (CSO @ Facebook): - FBM is multi-device, and we'd like to see E2E usability improve to support this. For now, pick one device and keys never leave it - Secret conversations don't currently support popular features like searching message history, switching devices, voice/video, etc - Hundreds of millions use Messenger from a web browser. No secure way to verify code or store keys without routing through mobile. "We don't want to disrupt people's current experience." Source: https://twitter.com/alexstamos https://twitter.com/alexstamos

arximboldi 10y ago
Hundreds of millions use Messenger from a web browser. No secure way to verify code or store keys without routing through mobile. I wouldn't use the web version if they had not disabled Jabber access... and then I could use OTR. This trend makes me very sad... IM networks are getting more centralized as ever. I don't feel thankful for this kind of development. End-to-end encryption should not be a feature of the service provider, but the client. The way this works with Whatsapp/FB/Google just requires us to believe that their proprietary client is actually doing what it promises. And for me that I don't have a smartphone they just don't even promise anything. I just wish I could use XMPP or Matrix with my non-nerdy friends. There was this time Google seemed to not be evil with GTalk/XMPP, but then... The business cynicism that dominates this industry, allowing people to claim that they "connect people" at the same time that they put everyone in digital prisons, makes me really want to leave computing and go live in a cave.
- rvense 10y ago
  I honestly find this centralization as worrying as mass surveillance itself. I'm as afraid of the Facebooks of this world as I am of any government, and I don't want all my communication locked in with one company. This is why I will not use or recommend Signal. Moxie's anti-federation stance is unacceptable to me. It's replacing one problem with another.
  - bogomipz 10y ago

maxerickson 10y ago

Am I confused? Isn't it impossible to brute force a single properly encrypted message? (where properly means that the protocol and implementation are sound and so on)

softawre 10y ago
This makes a lot of assumptions, like the NSA hasn't broken algorithms we consider secure, that they're not somehow sharing keys, or using a gimped algorithm on purpose, etc.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Sure, but those assumptions are implicit in the statement I replied to Multi-millions of FB messages must be sent every day, brute-forcing encryption on all of these is probably not possible. A small % marked as 'secret conversation'? Much easier. If you don't trust Facebook, you don't need to evaluate the quality of their implementation of secret messaging, you just shouldn't use it.
- Ar-Curunir 10y ago
  NSA mostly likely hasn't broken AES or ECC. And the rest of the arguments don't apply in this case; the parent was talking about hope having a few users use encryption makes it easier for Facebook to compromise security. Using gimped algorithms or sharing keys would affect both scenarios equally.

tptacek 10y ago

Given what modern science knows about mathematics and computer science, you cannot brute-force decrypt messages encrypted by Signal Protocol. Not millions, not hundreds, not tens, not even one.

ris 10y ago

"brute-forcing encryption on all of these is probably not possible. A small % marked as 'secret conversation'? Much easier." They probably wouldn't have to brute-force them. Backdooring's still quite possible - the NSA are perfectly capable of compelling Facebook to install a keylogger in their app.

bertil 10y ago

> I am not usually one for paranoia, but is anyone else becoming more suspicious about Facebooks motivations and involvement with gov? I worked for Facebook; I am friends with the people who developed this: I would like to reassure you strongly (well, as much as an Internet stranger can) on their motives. They are the good guys, and this was develop with people being spied on by abusive governments in mind — because those people use Messenger and would like to do it for those conversations too. Don’t trust me, but reach out to them if you are curious: few people appreciate their work, so they are generally happy to talk (about published work; unannounced products are very much off limits). Facebook does collaborate with governments when the messages are not encrypted and the crimes are clear, and the court issued warrants. I seriously doubt any of those are political dissidents. Facebook engineers receive very generous poaching offers all the time, and they would have minimal economic damage from leaving the company over something like this. The shit-show from engineers leaving over that would massive (and many engineers are true believers). I wasn’t in the company six months ago when that project was decided, but from my experience of the internal culture, I know that there was a debate on whether this feature could cover crimes that Facebook would object to — and the need for protecting the good guys obviously had the upper hand. > Why doesn't FB just apply encryption on all messages? > Surely they have the resources avail. Scaling. I know nothing about this, but I have no doubt that this is the main reason. Any tiny amount of extra memory, computation, etc. times a billion becomes massive. Facebook struggles building enough capacity for all its services: the data center expansions you hear about are done a break-neck pace, to meet service expansion deadlines. The engineers working on this are heroes internally, and the units they use are unheard of outside of astronomy. More specifically, they probably want to test some scaling aspects, but it might be unethical to use the usual approach of A/B testing.

nocarrier 10y ago
I'm former FB Infra and agree with your first point re: motives. There's a lot of true believers working in the security space at Facebook, and I have tons of respect for them. I used to work closely with many of them. However, scaling and/or capacity is not the reason E2E encryption isn't applied on all messages. The crypto operations are relatively trivial in terms of cpu. This comment summarizes what FB's CSO said about why they are not launching E2E broadly yet. It boils down to usability concerns. Sounds like they are working on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12055567 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12055567

libeclipse 10y ago

Brute-forcing is infeasible. The meta-data is certainly visible however, so intelligence agencies could glean a lot of information about certain users from other sources. You're right that "private conversations" does throw up a red flag.

djsumdog 10y ago

It's like the entire world forgot about PRISM.

ipozgaj 10y ago
Because the whole story was bs? Zuckerberg himself commented on that https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10100828955847631 https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10100828955847631
- dandelion_lover 10y ago
  Do you honestly believe in his words?
- djsumdog 10y ago
  I agree. I hate how everyone trusted the Snowden story without question. It's pretty much US sponsored propaganda. I doubt Snowden is even in Russia.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

rhizome 10y ago

Multi-millions of FB messages must be sent every day, brute-forcing encryption on all of these is probably not possible It's kind of a Hobson's Choice. You can message in the clear, or you can encrypt your messages and the government can keep your messages forever. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130620/15390323549/nsa-has-convinced-fisa-court-that-if-your-data-is-encrypted-you-might-be-terrorist-so-itll-hang-onto-your-data.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130620/15390323549/nsa-h...

c_c_c 10y ago

You answered your own question. No, serious threats do not use Facebook Messenger. The reason it's limited deploy is technical (for now) not caging. Metadata is more important than content. They will always have the metadata.