12 ms·

> The whole Cambridge Analytica issue was caused by APIs that are too open. For distributed systems there are more ways to exploit the APIs and gather data on u

> The whole Cambridge Analytica issue was caused by APIs that are too open. For distributed systems there are more ways to exploit the APIs and gather data on users. Huh? Scuttlebutt is fully encrypted.. doesn't that make the API vastly more locked down than Facebook/etc? > There is a clear issue with Facebook's accountability in these areas. Distributed systems are typically open source, they run on multiple servers by different owners, this leads to zero accountability. This is no worse than Facebook though. With Facebook, your friend could steal all of the data you let them see. With Scuttlebutt, your friend could steal all of the data you let them see. At least with this I control who sees my data, no? Sure, I can't have accountability with a friend, but at least no company/etc has access to my data. > GDPR compliance about deleting data is almost impossible in a distributed system. Doesn't GDPR apply to companies? If my mom sends me a physical card, do I have to adhere to GDPR laws with her address/name? How is that any different than Scuttlebutt?

lukeschlather 9y ago
> This is no worse than Facebook though. With Facebook, your friend could steal all of the data you let them see. With Scuttlebutt, your friend could steal all of the data you let them see. Your friend can, but Facebook can scrutinize third-party apps. In a decentralized world, there's no one who has access to holistically examine automated access and detect shady activity. In a decentralized world, everything is essentially a third-party app.
- madamelic 9y ago
  >Facebook can scrutinize third-party apps I can assure you that they don't. Anyone can have a third-party app that scavenges for private info. See: Cambridge Analytica. >there's no one who has access to holistically examine automated access and detect shady activity There is. It is you. You can shut off access your data any time you want to. Yes, if you give someone access to some data, that data could potentially be out there forever but you can revoke access to your (future) data freely.
  - notheguyouthink 9y ago
    > Yes, if you give someone access to some data, that data could potentially be out there forever but you can revoke access to your (future) data freely. And, most importantly, the same is true for literally any platform. One quick look at people taking screen shots of snapchat posts shows how deletion of data from a platform like FB or Snapchat is irrelevant - viewers of that data can always copy it.
  - twblalock 9y ago
    Facebook is going to scrutinize third-party apps now. They don't want another scandal similar to the Cambridge Analytica one.
- nightski 9y ago
  Do apps really bring that much value to the social network experience? I know for myself I have not found a single Facebook app that brings any positive value to my life.
  - acdha 9y ago
    A lot of people like using them as a login system. Maybe WebAuthn will help with that since it’s a valid use but most people didn’t see what else they were agreeing to. The other thing I’ve seen a lot of people use are notifications / invites. e.g. most big gaming communities are bad experiences but you can bootstrap your friends into a better group. That seems harder to change and it’s definitely a real need.
  - xori 9y ago
    Services like Buffer.io or custom mobile/desktop clients that post on your behalf. Basically only automation & power users.
  - newfoundglory 9y ago
    Have any of your friends installed a Facebook app? Because it doesn’t matter if you decide they're not worth using, you have to make sure nobody in your network uses them either.
agmcleod 9y ago
It's worse than facebook because there's no one to have responsibility to be accountable. This ties in with your question about GDPR. While I'm not a lawyer, as far as I know it doesn't matter if you're a person or a company, if you're collecting data, it's something you can be liable for. So in a distributed system, all parties who maintain the data sources would be liable. I actually wonder how this works logistically in terms of storing account info on something like Ethereum.
- notheguyouthink 9y ago
  > It's worse than facebook because there's no one to have responsibility to be accountable. I guess I just don't understand what accountability there is to be even had? If I send an encrypted message to my friend, who is accountable? What are they accountable for? If I'm sending illegal content to someone only I can be held accountable (and possibly the person I'm sending to). Is that any different in Scuttlebutts case?
  - agmcleod 9y ago
    Ah i think i may have misunderstood how the system is made. It is purely peer to peer. So any issues could be if the software has a security vulnerability, but I'm not sure how that ties in with things like "as-use" open source licensing. This post explained the network fairly well I found: https://staltz.com/an-off-grid-social-network.html https://staltz.com/an-off-grid-social-network.html As far as GDPR goes, you're right because you're specifically choosing people to send it to. However, having a mechanism to delete your messages on other people's systems when they sync would probably go a long way.
    - aeorgnoieang 9y ago
      Are you claiming that GDPR holds individuals liable to delete info they might have about another person on request?
      - icebraining 9y ago
throwawayjava 9y ago
> Scuttlebutt is fully encrypted.. doesn't that make the API vastly more locked down than Facebook/etc? No, not at all! TOR is fully encrypted, but there are somewhat regular vulnerability reports about various parts of the stack. Including criticial vulnerabilities that can and have been exploited by nation states, for example. > This is no worse than Facebook though This is not at all clear to me. The attack surface for Scuttlebutt is much larger, and I trust Facebook's security team to audit and patch much more than I trust any random friend.
- bigiain 9y ago
  > I trust Facebook's security team to audit and patch much more than I trust any random friend. Sure, but I wouldn't choose "a random friend" to run my FB replacement service, I'd choose a trusted friend. And more importantly, no matter how good Facebooks security team are at patching and auditing servers - THEY ARE THE ADVERSARY IN THIS CONTEXT!
  - gregknicholson 9y ago
    > Sure, but I wouldn't choose "a random friend" to run my FB replacement service, I'd choose a trusted friend. How does this relate to scuttlebutt? There's no scuttlebutt “service”; it's a tool and a protocol, like a pen and the English language. > no matter how good Facebooks security team are at patching and auditing servers - THEY ARE THE ADVERSARY IN THIS CONTEXT! I think this is the salient point: if you send data to your friend, they necessarily have that data and can leak it; but there's no need for a stranger with unknown motives (Facebook) to also have that data.
Vendan 9y ago
Scuttlebutt is not at all "fully encrypted", it's fairly trivial to spider and download just about everything. The hardest part is the first foothold (which can be found posted various places, including the official docs on ssb), from there, downloading the entire "social web" it has can be done with the "main client" by basically changing a single config value.
- wybiral 9y ago
  I haven't looked into the protocol in any depth yet but it does seem like it supports end-to-end encrypted updates. What data are you talking about that can easily be crawled without any permissions? If it is that simple then maybe Scuttlebutt isn't a good protocol, but a secure end-to-end platform like this is definitely possible. And if anyone is going to build it it's not going to be a company who makes all of their cash from harvesting user data.
  - Vendan 9y ago
    I've written a partial implementation of the scuttlebutt p2p protocol (not the encryption, but everything on top). While point to point is encrypted, the bulk of the data is not encrypted. You can specifically send "private" messages that are encrypted such that only a set of keys (users) can decrypt (read) them, but this is by no means the default for anything.
    - gardnr 9y ago
      So the feed is public like Twitter?
      - Vendan 9y ago
        essentially public, and also basically requires downloading and storing the entire history of a "feed" to verify it.
- tathougies 9y ago
  Sure you can download everything, but you can't read it...
smsm42 9y ago
> Scuttlebutt is fully encrypted.. doesn't that make the API vastly more locked down than Facebook/etc? Encryption has nothing to do with it. The whole issue with CA was that they (just as many apps before them) were using Facebook social graph data that was available for them to access via the API. Encryption on any layer has nothing to do with it - if you have access to the API, you get the data. In distributed system, if you are a node in the system, you have to have access to social graph data - otherwise the whole concept of social network does not work. You can't "see what your friends are doing" if there's no information about who your "friends" are. And if the nodes on the network have information about who your friends are - or can get that information - then they have the same access as CA (and many other apps before them) had. Facebook can at least (if they wanted to) cut off the external API and not tell the social graph structure to anybody outside Facebook. I don't see how this is possible in a distributed network.
- ianopolous 9y ago
  You very definitely don't need to expose the social graph to the api. We are doing exactly that in Peergos [1][2]. Your social graph is only stored in encrypted form in your own storage space (in IPFS). The source of a follow request can't be deduced by anyone except the recipient. If you start integrating Tor/i2p hidden services, even global passive network adversaries will struggle to figure out the social graph from network monitoring. [1] https://github.com/peergos/peergos https://github.com/peergos/peergos [2] https://peergos.github.io/book https://peergos.github.io/book
  - ensignavenger 9y ago
    If the recipient can access it, then the recipient can grant access to a third party- which is what happened with Facebook/CA. People unwittingly shared the information their friends had shared with them with a third party.
    - ianopolous 9y ago
      That is clearly fundamentally true of any information. The question is what is shared by default. We don't even share your friend list by default, so the exposure is much less.
magice 9y ago
I see that you don't understand the problems raised. About accountability: if YOU are compromised, your friends' data are compromised, and vice versa. Are you saying that the median security skill of your friends are higher than Facebook? Because any of them can leak your data unintentionally. About encryption: it's freaking useless in this case. Remember, some people fall for Nigeria prince scam. And what happen when their keys are compromised? See above. That's the crux of the argument: you can't guarantee that your precious friends and family can safeguard their keys (in fact, I doubt my personal security practice is remotely as good as FB or Google or Amazon or MS or Apple). In that case, by the virtual of distribution, your data is copied everywhere, waiting for any key to compromise.
- strypey 8y ago
  It boggles the mind that people still have the blissful trust in the security chops of giant corporations. I could give you a long list of well-funded corporations whose servers have been cracked in the last few years (remember Ashley Madison?!?), but I really only need to mention one; GitHub ...

lukeschlather 9y ago

> This is no worse than Facebook though. With Facebook, your friend could steal all of the data you let them see. With Scuttlebutt, your friend could steal all of the data you let them see. Your friend can, but Facebook can scrutinize third-party apps. In a decentralized world, there's no one who has access to holistically examine automated access and detect shady activity. In a decentralized world, everything is essentially a third-party app.

madamelic 9y ago
>Facebook can scrutinize third-party apps I can assure you that they don't. Anyone can have a third-party app that scavenges for private info. See: Cambridge Analytica. >there's no one who has access to holistically examine automated access and detect shady activity There is. It is you. You can shut off access your data any time you want to. Yes, if you give someone access to some data, that data could potentially be out there forever but you can revoke access to your (future) data freely.
- notheguyouthink 9y ago
  > Yes, if you give someone access to some data, that data could potentially be out there forever but you can revoke access to your (future) data freely. And, most importantly, the same is true for literally any platform. One quick look at people taking screen shots of snapchat posts shows how deletion of data from a platform like FB or Snapchat is irrelevant - viewers of that data can always copy it.
- twblalock 9y ago
  Facebook is going to scrutinize third-party apps now. They don't want another scandal similar to the Cambridge Analytica one.
nightski 9y ago
Do apps really bring that much value to the social network experience? I know for myself I have not found a single Facebook app that brings any positive value to my life.
- acdha 9y ago
  A lot of people like using them as a login system. Maybe WebAuthn will help with that since it’s a valid use but most people didn’t see what else they were agreeing to. The other thing I’ve seen a lot of people use are notifications / invites. e.g. most big gaming communities are bad experiences but you can bootstrap your friends into a better group. That seems harder to change and it’s definitely a real need.
- xori 9y ago
  Services like Buffer.io or custom mobile/desktop clients that post on your behalf. Basically only automation & power users.
- newfoundglory 9y ago
  Have any of your friends installed a Facebook app? Because it doesn’t matter if you decide they're not worth using, you have to make sure nobody in your network uses them either.

agmcleod 9y ago

It's worse than facebook because there's no one to have responsibility to be accountable. This ties in with your question about GDPR. While I'm not a lawyer, as far as I know it doesn't matter if you're a person or a company, if you're collecting data, it's something you can be liable for. So in a distributed system, all parties who maintain the data sources would be liable. I actually wonder how this works logistically in terms of storing account info on something like Ethereum.

notheguyouthink 9y ago
> It's worse than facebook because there's no one to have responsibility to be accountable. I guess I just don't understand what accountability there is to be even had? If I send an encrypted message to my friend, who is accountable? What are they accountable for? If I'm sending illegal content to someone only I can be held accountable (and possibly the person I'm sending to). Is that any different in Scuttlebutts case?
- agmcleod 9y ago
  Ah i think i may have misunderstood how the system is made. It is purely peer to peer. So any issues could be if the software has a security vulnerability, but I'm not sure how that ties in with things like "as-use" open source licensing. This post explained the network fairly well I found: https://staltz.com/an-off-grid-social-network.html https://staltz.com/an-off-grid-social-network.html As far as GDPR goes, you're right because you're specifically choosing people to send it to. However, having a mechanism to delete your messages on other people's systems when they sync would probably go a long way.
  - aeorgnoieang 9y ago
    Are you claiming that GDPR holds individuals liable to delete info they might have about another person on request?
    - icebraining 9y ago

throwawayjava 9y ago

> Scuttlebutt is fully encrypted.. doesn't that make the API vastly more locked down than Facebook/etc? No, not at all! TOR is fully encrypted, but there are somewhat regular vulnerability reports about various parts of the stack. Including criticial vulnerabilities that can and have been exploited by nation states, for example. > This is no worse than Facebook though This is not at all clear to me. The attack surface for Scuttlebutt is much larger, and I trust Facebook's security team to audit and patch much more than I trust any random friend.

bigiain 9y ago
> I trust Facebook's security team to audit and patch much more than I trust any random friend. Sure, but I wouldn't choose "a random friend" to run my FB replacement service, I'd choose a trusted friend. And more importantly, no matter how good Facebooks security team are at patching and auditing servers - THEY ARE THE ADVERSARY IN THIS CONTEXT!
- gregknicholson 9y ago
  > Sure, but I wouldn't choose "a random friend" to run my FB replacement service, I'd choose a trusted friend. How does this relate to scuttlebutt? There's no scuttlebutt “service”; it's a tool and a protocol, like a pen and the English language. > no matter how good Facebooks security team are at patching and auditing servers - THEY ARE THE ADVERSARY IN THIS CONTEXT! I think this is the salient point: if you send data to your friend, they necessarily have that data and can leak it; but there's no need for a stranger with unknown motives (Facebook) to also have that data.

Vendan 9y ago

Scuttlebutt is not at all "fully encrypted", it's fairly trivial to spider and download just about everything. The hardest part is the first foothold (which can be found posted various places, including the official docs on ssb), from there, downloading the entire "social web" it has can be done with the "main client" by basically changing a single config value.

wybiral 9y ago
I haven't looked into the protocol in any depth yet but it does seem like it supports end-to-end encrypted updates. What data are you talking about that can easily be crawled without any permissions? If it is that simple then maybe Scuttlebutt isn't a good protocol, but a secure end-to-end platform like this is definitely possible. And if anyone is going to build it it's not going to be a company who makes all of their cash from harvesting user data.
- Vendan 9y ago
  I've written a partial implementation of the scuttlebutt p2p protocol (not the encryption, but everything on top). While point to point is encrypted, the bulk of the data is not encrypted. You can specifically send "private" messages that are encrypted such that only a set of keys (users) can decrypt (read) them, but this is by no means the default for anything.
  - gardnr 9y ago
    So the feed is public like Twitter?
    - Vendan 9y ago
      essentially public, and also basically requires downloading and storing the entire history of a "feed" to verify it.
tathougies 9y ago
Sure you can download everything, but you can't read it...

smsm42 9y ago

> Scuttlebutt is fully encrypted.. doesn't that make the API vastly more locked down than Facebook/etc? Encryption has nothing to do with it. The whole issue with CA was that they (just as many apps before them) were using Facebook social graph data that was available for them to access via the API. Encryption on any layer has nothing to do with it - if you have access to the API, you get the data. In distributed system, if you are a node in the system, you have to have access to social graph data - otherwise the whole concept of social network does not work. You can't "see what your friends are doing" if there's no information about who your "friends" are. And if the nodes on the network have information about who your friends are - or can get that information - then they have the same access as CA (and many other apps before them) had. Facebook can at least (if they wanted to) cut off the external API and not tell the social graph structure to anybody outside Facebook. I don't see how this is possible in a distributed network.

ianopolous 9y ago
You very definitely don't need to expose the social graph to the api. We are doing exactly that in Peergos [1][2]. Your social graph is only stored in encrypted form in your own storage space (in IPFS). The source of a follow request can't be deduced by anyone except the recipient. If you start integrating Tor/i2p hidden services, even global passive network adversaries will struggle to figure out the social graph from network monitoring. [1] https://github.com/peergos/peergos https://github.com/peergos/peergos [2] https://peergos.github.io/book https://peergos.github.io/book
- ensignavenger 9y ago
  If the recipient can access it, then the recipient can grant access to a third party- which is what happened with Facebook/CA. People unwittingly shared the information their friends had shared with them with a third party.
  - ianopolous 9y ago
    That is clearly fundamentally true of any information. The question is what is shared by default. We don't even share your friend list by default, so the exposure is much less.

magice 9y ago

I see that you don't understand the problems raised. About accountability: if YOU are compromised, your friends' data are compromised, and vice versa. Are you saying that the median security skill of your friends are higher than Facebook? Because any of them can leak your data unintentionally. About encryption: it's freaking useless in this case. Remember, some people fall for Nigeria prince scam. And what happen when their keys are compromised? See above. That's the crux of the argument: you can't guarantee that your precious friends and family can safeguard their keys (in fact, I doubt my personal security practice is remotely as good as FB or Google or Amazon or MS or Apple). In that case, by the virtual of distribution, your data is copied everywhere, waiting for any key to compromise.

strypey 8y ago
It boggles the mind that people still have the blissful trust in the security chops of giant corporations. I could give you a long list of well-funded corporations whose servers have been cracked in the last few years (remember Ashley Madison?!?), but I really only need to mention one; GitHub ...