5 ms·
Backdoors have been revealed a few times in US products, but US companies have learned their lesson and appear to be pushing back. 9/11 is almost a decade in th
by jjeaff 7y ago
Backdoors have been revealed a few times in US products, but US companies have learned their lesson and appear to be pushing back. 9/11 is almost a decade in the past and the Snowden revelations embarrassed several companies. Things like warrant canaries are pretty common and companies like Apple have been publicly fighting government attempts to access Apple devices in court.
One thing the US has going for it is that unlike some countries, is that companies are more scared of their customers than the government.
- jeroenhd 7y agoEvery three or four months Cisco or Juniper get caught having introduced a new backdoor. Hardcoded admin passwords, full system access backdoors following a specific port knocking sequence, you name it. Sure, some companies have started pushing back but the companies that produce critical network infrastructure can't be trusted.
- Hikikomori 7y agoBackdoors or just shitty developers and security practices? What port knocking backdoor?
- dspillett 7y ago> 9/11 is almost a decade in the past I assume you mean two decades? (unless I'm missing the point and you are referring to some specific fall-out from that event that had particular significance at a point ten years after?)
- SeanMacConMara 7y agoA warrant canary is utterly useless as a defense. Any secret legal order to alter IT systems (the specific threat model it is most often suggested for) can logically also include an order to maintain a fake warrant canary.
- JoshTriplett 7y agoPart of the theory of a warrant canary is that compelled speech (and in particular a compelled lie) may be easier to challenge than suppressed speech. While that isn't definitive, there's some jurisprudence to back that theory. If you have a warrant canary, you should be prepared to challenge any such order in court and use that as the defense.
- tomp 7y agoHow so? Censorship is explicitly forbidden by the US constitution, and even so it happens (in this case, "in the name of national security" or whatever).
- rtkwe 7y agoThe current interpretation says there are certain reasonable restrictions on the 1st for the public safety. Compelled speech isn't accepted as constitutional. Remember the constitution only really, effectively, says whatever the current Supreme Court says it means. And really I don't think anyone want's the 100% literal 'shall make no law' interpretation of free speech; that would throw out any kind of labeling laws for starters, companies would have no government compulsion to accurately label drugs or food products for example.
- SeanMacConMara 7y agois ordering silence and secretly seizing control of the publication technology (ie website) then maintaining a false warrant canary a way around compelled speech ? if so then regular live press-conference/video appearances would be the only practical implementation method. if they say nothing and exit then the canary is dead.
- rtkwe 7y agoIt could be, I'm not a lawyer. That seizure would be something you could fight in court too on two fronts: seizure of property and if the government takes over your means of communication and pretends to be you what separates that from directly compelling speech.
- pmlnr 7y ago"US companies have learned their lesson" SURE. And they are all GDPR compliant as well.
- coldtea 7y ago>Backdoors have been revealed a few times in US products, but US companies have learned their lesson and appear to be pushing back. Yeah, that's not exactly the case...
- seppin 7y agoIn comparison to Chinese companies which comply 100% of the time with Chinese military intelligence, it matters.
- skyyler 7y agoI'm on your side here, but throwing around baseless acquisitions isn't helpful.
- seppin 7y ago>baseless acquisitions huh? what's baseless about pointed out the 100% compliance of Chinese companies with the CCP?
- jjeaff 7y agoIt would be baseless if anyone had a single story of any Chinese company trying to go against the wishes of the Chinese government and not being either immediately arrested and "disappeared" or having the company nationalized by the government.
- coldtea 7y agoI'm not sure token non-compliance (and non-compliance theater) makes much of a difference...
- seppin 7y agoYou are not sure cooperating or not cooperating matters? Or you think Apple secretly gave the FBI an iPhone unlock when they say they didn't? What are you actually saying?
- denton-scratch 7y ago9/11 is almost two decades in the past. Shall we return to the Crimean war?
- habitue 7y agoNote: 9/11 is almost two decades in the past