3 ms·
You are making assumptions that are rather obviously false. Every centralized app preserves an ability to eventually spy on you. End-to-end encryption doesn't
by zzzcpan 9y ago
You are making assumptions that are rather obviously false.
Every centralized app preserves an ability to eventually spy on you. End-to-end encryption doesn't take it away.
If a government wants mass surveillance it either asks/coerces someone from the company to implement a backdoor or blocks the app in the country pushing people into mass surveillance friendly alternatives. So end-to-end encryption cannot possibly protect from mass surveillance.
Client side backdoors obviously don't need to be pure client side either, only revert back from end-to-end encryption to client-to-server encryption preserving plausible deniability for the company. Possibly even leaving end-to-end encryption in the app, just not enabled by default. Such change can even be advertised as an improvement, like cross device chat history feature or something.
- magic_quotes 9y ago> Every centralized app preserves an ability to eventually spy on you. End-to-end encryption doesn't take it away. Never said anything like that. > If a government wants mass surveillance it either asks/coerces someone from the company to implement a backdoor or blocks the app in the country pushing people into mass surveillance friendly alternatives. Yes. > So end-to-end encryption cannot possibly protect from mass surveillance. Are you arguing for mass surveillance friendly software? Decentralized software? What are you arguing? I'm completely lost there.
- zzzcpan 9y agoI'm arguing that end-to-end encryption in a centralized app doesn't actually do better with regards to any threat from its threat model as compared to client-to-server encryption. It's sort of a fallacy, centralization cancels out any benefits that end-to-end encryption is supposed to bring over client-to-server encryption. So "but they have" or "don't have end-to-end encryption" cannot be an argument.