9 ms·

Just a note on your first point. End-to-end encryption only encrypts messages in transit. This does not make messages inaccessible to Facebook, as they contro

Just a note on your first point. End-to-end encryption only encrypts messages in transit. This does not make messages inaccessible to Facebook, as they control both endpoints.

menzoic 7y ago
End to end means from client to client. Facebook wouldn't be able to see the messages.
- diffset 7y ago
  They also own the client so it'd be trivial to send the data back to Facebook after it's decrypted on the client. It'd be really stupid to do that, but it's Facebook.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  This. Although when it comes to Facebook, we have to take them at their word that it's truly end-to-end.
- josh2600 7y ago
  Have you read the client code? How would you know? Just because the protocol is well-formed doesn’t mean the totality of the implementation is trustworthy. #ShowUsTheCode
  - dymk 7y ago
    Reading the client code means bupkis. Trust is not derived from source code, but from where you got your stack (phone hardware, operating system, build tools, application source code, distribution platform included). https://www.archive.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p761-thompson.pdf https://www.archive.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p7...
    - gfodor 7y ago
      Clearly its derived from all of the above. The end goal we have for Hubs (hubs.mozilla.com) is to allow the theoretical limit of auditing to be done by the public when using our hosted services wrt both the code and the operations. And ofc, you can always run the bits yourself if you don't trust that audit.
      - the_pwner224 7y ago
        I went to hubs.mozilla.com and couldn't figure out what it does. I then tried making/joining a Hub but it got stalled at one of the loading steps so I still couldn't figure out what a Hub is. They seem to be VR meeting spaces: https://blog.mozvr.com/introducing-hubs-a-new-way-to-get-together-online/ https://blog.mozvr.com/introducing-hubs-a-new-way-to-get-tog... The model you describe seems like a good one, similar to what most Linux distributions do. The distro maintainers are trusted and they compile packages and distribute the binaries, but people can run the package generation scripts themselves to get their own package straight from the source. Reproducible builds allow users to confirm that the maintainers aren't doing anything sketchy - that probably isn't a possibility here, but this model is still far better than what FB/WhatsApp and even Signal do.
        gfodor 7y ago
        Sorry you hit a snag. Yes, we're building a web-based avatar-centric communications tool, which also supports VR. If you have more info on your setup (browser, OS, link to the room that failed) and what you saw that'd be fantastic so we can fix it! Feel free to email me directly gfodor at mozilla.com.
  - idlewords 7y ago
    Read the client code? Bah! How do you know that's what's in the compiled binary?
    - mises 7y ago
      Reproducible builds. This is pretty much exactly their purpose.
      - idlewords 7y ago
        The non-facetious point here is that you have to root your trust in something (whether that's the maker of your reproducible build system, or your device, or your app, or the online service you use, or the chip foundry that made the CPU that runs your built-from-scratch-paranoid-OS). It's better to have to trust somewhat verifiable promises about the Facebook app than to have to trust unverifiable promises about Facebook-the-entire-organization. That's the advantage that E2E provides.
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > End to end means from client to client. Facebook wouldn't be able to see the messages. Maybe they'll start training a personalized ML model on client devices and maybe even send it back to the mothership for further exploitation.
  - dpflan 7y ago
    This kind of stuff is interesting, and I think you're on the right track (simply based on intuition, not really informed on this at all). I'm interested in compressing models for performance on lower computational power devices. Like Google's Learn2Compress (https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/05/custom-on-device-ml-models.html https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/05/custom-on-device-ml-models...)
- nokya 7y ago
  Not really. End to end encryption means messages will leave the app encrypted and only the recipient app will be able to read them.The middle man remains. A good analogy: it's like writing a letter and asking the mailman to put it into an envelope, so she leaves the room and comes back with your sealed envelope. The mailman then looks at you and says "I won't read it, I promise.", Wink wink. That's end-to-end encryption for the commons.
  - gfodor 7y ago
    The main gap in trust is that facebook does not disclose their source code and have a way for users to confirm their device is running the published code. Fundamentally, if their implementation is properly implementing a published e2e protocol, they should not be able to read the messages, since the only thing traveling in the clear over the wire through their servers are public keys.
    - panarky 7y ago
      > The main gap in trust is that facebook does not disclose their source code Nah, nobody gives a damn about the source code, or reproducible builds to ensure the binary they're executing was compiled with that source. The main gap in trust is that Facebook has a long history of lying and cheating to maximize for themselves so there's no basis to trust that their new moves are good for users. But conspiracy theories about e2e being read by Facebook are probably bogus, and certainly a distraction. Even though the source is closed, I'd bet they're doing a credible job of securing messages so that even Facebook can't read them. That's not the issue, it's a distraction from what's really important. What's really important is that Facebook has lost control of the monster it created. This is a way to let the monster loose and avoid accountability. Their platform amplifies harmful content like incitement to violence, terrorist recruiting and coordination, and political propaganda. By encrypting everything so even Facebook can't read it, Facebook escapes accountability for the harm their platform inflicts on people. Very similar to a chemical company dumping toxic waste in public water, Facebook is dumping their pollution on the public by using strong encryption to make it physically impossible for Facebook to control the monster they created.
  - deleted 7y ago
- JohnFen 7y ago
  I think that what he means is if Facebook-owned apps are at each end, then end-to-end encryption means less because Facebook has access to both end points. You don't have to MITM a connection if you have access to the ends.
idlewords 7y ago
You can use the same line of argument to say the messages are accessible to whoever makes the device, since they could in principle monitor the message. It's kind of an empty criticism.
- nokya 7y ago
  Exactly. Hence their attempt some years ago at selling Facebook integrated smartphones. End to end encryption, wink wink ;)
  - tptacek 7y ago
    I can't tell if this comment, which seems to make the argument that Facebook tried to market a mobile phone so that they could defeat the end-to-end encryption they planned to offer in their applications, is facetious or not.

Just a note on your first point. End-to-end encryption only encrypts messages in transit. This does not make messages inaccessible to Facebook, as they control both endpoints.

menzoic 7y ago

End to end means from client to client. Facebook wouldn't be able to see the messages.

diffset 7y ago
They also own the client so it'd be trivial to send the data back to Facebook after it's decrypted on the client. It'd be really stupid to do that, but it's Facebook.
JohnFen 7y ago
This. Although when it comes to Facebook, we have to take them at their word that it's truly end-to-end.
josh2600 7y ago
Have you read the client code? How would you know? Just because the protocol is well-formed doesn’t mean the totality of the implementation is trustworthy. #ShowUsTheCode
- dymk 7y ago
  Reading the client code means bupkis. Trust is not derived from source code, but from where you got your stack (phone hardware, operating system, build tools, application source code, distribution platform included). https://www.archive.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p761-thompson.pdf https://www.archive.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p7...
  - gfodor 7y ago
    Clearly its derived from all of the above. The end goal we have for Hubs (hubs.mozilla.com) is to allow the theoretical limit of auditing to be done by the public when using our hosted services wrt both the code and the operations. And ofc, you can always run the bits yourself if you don't trust that audit.
    - the_pwner224 7y ago
      I went to hubs.mozilla.com and couldn't figure out what it does. I then tried making/joining a Hub but it got stalled at one of the loading steps so I still couldn't figure out what a Hub is. They seem to be VR meeting spaces: https://blog.mozvr.com/introducing-hubs-a-new-way-to-get-together-online/ https://blog.mozvr.com/introducing-hubs-a-new-way-to-get-tog... The model you describe seems like a good one, similar to what most Linux distributions do. The distro maintainers are trusted and they compile packages and distribute the binaries, but people can run the package generation scripts themselves to get their own package straight from the source. Reproducible builds allow users to confirm that the maintainers aren't doing anything sketchy - that probably isn't a possibility here, but this model is still far better than what FB/WhatsApp and even Signal do.
      - gfodor 7y ago
        Sorry you hit a snag. Yes, we're building a web-based avatar-centric communications tool, which also supports VR. If you have more info on your setup (browser, OS, link to the room that failed) and what you saw that'd be fantastic so we can fix it! Feel free to email me directly gfodor at mozilla.com.
- idlewords 7y ago
  Read the client code? Bah! How do you know that's what's in the compiled binary?
  - mises 7y ago
    Reproducible builds. This is pretty much exactly their purpose.
    - idlewords 7y ago
      The non-facetious point here is that you have to root your trust in something (whether that's the maker of your reproducible build system, or your device, or your app, or the online service you use, or the chip foundry that made the CPU that runs your built-from-scratch-paranoid-OS). It's better to have to trust somewhat verifiable promises about the Facebook app than to have to trust unverifiable promises about Facebook-the-entire-organization. That's the advantage that E2E provides.
CharlesColeman 7y ago
> End to end means from client to client. Facebook wouldn't be able to see the messages. Maybe they'll start training a personalized ML model on client devices and maybe even send it back to the mothership for further exploitation.
- dpflan 7y ago
  This kind of stuff is interesting, and I think you're on the right track (simply based on intuition, not really informed on this at all). I'm interested in compressing models for performance on lower computational power devices. Like Google's Learn2Compress (https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/05/custom-on-device-ml-models.html https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/05/custom-on-device-ml-models...)
nokya 7y ago
Not really. End to end encryption means messages will leave the app encrypted and only the recipient app will be able to read them.The middle man remains. A good analogy: it's like writing a letter and asking the mailman to put it into an envelope, so she leaves the room and comes back with your sealed envelope. The mailman then looks at you and says "I won't read it, I promise.", Wink wink. That's end-to-end encryption for the commons.
- gfodor 7y ago
  The main gap in trust is that facebook does not disclose their source code and have a way for users to confirm their device is running the published code. Fundamentally, if their implementation is properly implementing a published e2e protocol, they should not be able to read the messages, since the only thing traveling in the clear over the wire through their servers are public keys.
  - panarky 7y ago
    > The main gap in trust is that facebook does not disclose their source code Nah, nobody gives a damn about the source code, or reproducible builds to ensure the binary they're executing was compiled with that source. The main gap in trust is that Facebook has a long history of lying and cheating to maximize for themselves so there's no basis to trust that their new moves are good for users. But conspiracy theories about e2e being read by Facebook are probably bogus, and certainly a distraction. Even though the source is closed, I'd bet they're doing a credible job of securing messages so that even Facebook can't read them. That's not the issue, it's a distraction from what's really important. What's really important is that Facebook has lost control of the monster it created. This is a way to let the monster loose and avoid accountability. Their platform amplifies harmful content like incitement to violence, terrorist recruiting and coordination, and political propaganda. By encrypting everything so even Facebook can't read it, Facebook escapes accountability for the harm their platform inflicts on people. Very similar to a chemical company dumping toxic waste in public water, Facebook is dumping their pollution on the public by using strong encryption to make it physically impossible for Facebook to control the monster they created.
- deleted 7y ago
JohnFen 7y ago
I think that what he means is if Facebook-owned apps are at each end, then end-to-end encryption means less because Facebook has access to both end points. You don't have to MITM a connection if you have access to the ends.

idlewords 7y ago

You can use the same line of argument to say the messages are accessible to whoever makes the device, since they could in principle monitor the message. It's kind of an empty criticism.

nokya 7y ago
Exactly. Hence their attempt some years ago at selling Facebook integrated smartphones. End to end encryption, wink wink ;)
- tptacek 7y ago
  I can't tell if this comment, which seems to make the argument that Facebook tried to market a mobile phone so that they could defeat the end-to-end encryption they planned to offer in their applications, is facetious or not.