20 ms·

Facebook Tells Barr It Won’t Open Up Encrypted Messages

355 points by i_am_not_elon 7y ago

plicense 7y ago
How I wish this article's title was "Facebook Tells Barr it Can't Open up Encrypted Messages".
- bonestamp2 7y ago
  From the content of the article it also seems like it maybe should have that title. In the body they say they won't open their messaging product to law enforcement. Nowhere does it suggest (or deny) they can open messages. Some clarity on this would be nice.
- ImminentFate 7y ago
  If you read the article, it’s talking about not putting in a backdoor, and not Facebook saying “we have access to all encrypted messages, we’re just not giving them to you”. As it stands, they’re end-to-end encrypted so not even Facebook can’t see your messages, and that’s what Barr doesn’t like
  - SilasX 7y ago
    Why is everyone so confident Facebook hasn’t already backdoored it?
    - bytematic 7y ago
      Not sure the fallout of the public finding out would be worth it over the value add of reading messages, maybe I'm wrong but that's how I would look at it.
    - excalibur 7y ago
      They have in a manner of speaking. The communication channel is still encrypted, they just run their surveillance algorithms directly on your device. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2019/05/05/facebook-just-gave-repressive-regimes-the-ultimate-surveillance-blueprint/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2019/05/05/faceboo...
      - throwaway824721 7y ago
        That Forbes article was wrong: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20587643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20587643
        driminicus 7y ago
        Facebook says in a hn post that the article is wrong, but I have no real reason to trust Facebook, given their track record.
        mentat 7y ago
        > if we ever did it would be quite obvious and detectable that we had done it. It's running in your device, you don't have to trust them if you have technical skill.
        driminicus 7y ago
        I have little desire to decompile every update and/or constantly analyse what their app is doing. They've proven to be untrustworthy on multiple occasions, and haven't given me much reason to think they've changed. They might convince me if they open their client and server code, but even then they're yet another walled garden only interested in keeping their monopoly by building inferior products and using regularly capture to prevent any competition from doing the same thing they did to MySpace.
        bduerst 7y ago
        You can't read encrypted packages being sent by the app. The message telemetry could be bundled by the app with other telemetry and you wouldn't know despite your technical skill.
        badrequest 7y ago
        only if you choose to believe Facebook it was
        SilasX 7y ago
    - likpok 7y ago
      People regularly reverse engineer the Facebook apps to see what’s inside. (For example: Jane Wong)
    - nighthawk24 7y ago
      Don't trust closed source software for encryption.
  - tantalor 7y ago
    > they’re end-to-end encrypted so not even Facebook can’t see your messages Not quite. Facebook still controls the endpoints, so when you see the message so can they. This is obvious: you use their app to view the encrypted message, hence the app has access to the cleartext. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endpoint_security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endpoint_security
    - fooker 7y ago
      This seems like a extreme argument. If the app is not phoning home with the cleartext, this seems okay. You need some software to retrieve/read text anyway, so this becomes an exercise about trusting trust, etc.
      - TimTheTinker 7y ago
        > This seems like a extreme argument. Not at all. Good security often involves some black-and-white thinking, which not everyone is accustomed to. If Facebook controls the endpoint, then they have the power to access the plaintext, full stop. Using their product (hopefully) implies a choice to trust them not to abuse such access.
        gimmeThaBeet 7y ago
        > Using their product (hopefully) implies a choice to trust them not to abuse such access. Which is what...they said?
        ip26 7y ago
        Although I argue the black-and-white "everyone is a potential adversary" thinking is misguided. Your threat model determines requisite security measures, and you usually have to trust someone. (Although Facebook should probably not be that someone)
        fooker 7y ago
        Ok, what about the closed source hardware in the phones? Would you argue against all encryption because clearly the CPU maker has a similar access to all decrypted content?
- csunbird 7y ago
  Agreed. "Can't" implies they are unable to do it at all, which means they will not give the information to random LEO requests, because they simply can't. "Won't" implies they select who they want to give the data to, which mean they probably give that data to other actors, without users even knowing about it.
  - pjkundert 7y ago
    It's surprising to me that so many people give the benefit of the doubt to enterprises, when they (at huge effort and expense) emit "mealy-mouthed" rebuttals that leave open the possibility that they actually are doing evil. These people aren't stupid, and their legal and PR teams understand the fine details of the English language. It says what they mean to say, not what we wish it would say. They "Won't". Not that they "Can't".
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      >It surprising to me that so many people give the benefit of the doubt to enterprises, when they (at huge effort and expense) emit "mealy-mouthed" rebuttals that leave open the possibility that they actually are doing evil. And the alternative is an organization which has an absolutely stellar track record at not doing evil (obvious sarcasm should hopefully be obvious). Neither party is can be taken at at face value here.
  - daveFNbuck 7y ago
    How would a can't be possible here? They're being asked to modify the client code to enable surveillance. A client can't be secure against changes to its own code, and a protocol can't be secure against the client sharing the data it receives.
- brink 7y ago
  It sounds like you're asking for a clickbait title.
- fareesh 7y ago
  If I login to Facebook.com from any random device+browser, I seem to be able to read my "Facebook Messenger" history - maybe this is different if I use the Messenger app, but it seems like there's no E2EE here since I get the plaintext from anywhere. On WhatsApp there seems to be E2EE enabled but I have no idea what the keys are. A layperson definitely has no idea what the keys are. Could Facebook build an "NSA mode" where the old keys (K1) are quietly replaced with some known keys (K2) for a particular user at a particular timestamp T? This means that all messages before T are to be parsed by using K1 and all messages after T are to be parsed by using K2. As a WhatsApp user, would I even know if "NSA mode" has been enabled for my account? This would enable courts to allow surveillance for all future messages, but the old messages would still be E2EE. What if you involve Apple+Google into the mix and have them silently deploy a rogue update to a particular user's WhatsApp program - couldn't you just ask a court to write some kind of surveillance warrant which orders the 3 companies to work together to give the alphabet agency a way to remotely take the keys?
  - ehnto 7y ago
    That's exactly what the Assistance and Access Act of 2018 in Australia was for. It allows law enforcement to compel third parties to subvert encryption. This doesn't necessarily mean break the encryption itself, but could mean deploying a malicious update to a target device that keylogs or screen captures, or otherwise allows eavesdropping. Keep an eye out for similar bills in your respective governments, it passed without struggle in Australia despite the seemingly negative opinion the public and media had on the issue. https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/national-security/lawful-access-telecommunications/data-encryption https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/natio...
  - jaywalk 7y ago
    Facebook Messenger conversations are not E2EE by default. When you start one, you have to choose "Secret" in order for E2EE to be applied. This is only available from the Messenger app on mobile devices.
    - BelleOfTheBall 7y ago
- blackboxlogic 7y ago
  Or even "Barr Tells Facebook it Can't Open up Encrypted Messages"?
rock_hard 7y ago
Mirror without paywall: https://montrealtimes.news/facebook-tells-barr-it-wont-open-up-encrypted-messages/ https://montrealtimes.news/facebook-tells-barr-it-wont-open-...
zadkey 7y ago
"It is simply impossible to create such a backdoor for one purpose and not expect others to try and open it." While I don't like or use Facebook. I can't agree more with this sentiment.
- elicash 7y ago
  I do too. However, one thing I'd be curious to learn more about from this community... Facebook Messenger isn't encrypted now. What are the biggest examples where that has hurt users. I'm sure it happens, maybe frequently, but one thing that's impossible to get a sense of is the SIZE of the tradeoffs here. What's the biggest thing that's happened that we know about? Listening to the tech lawyers today at the Senate hearing, the pro-privacy side hasn't made a clear argument about just how bad it is now in FB's case, and just how bad it was before several years ago in Apple's case. (For FB you can understand why they wouldn't want to say their current system is a nightmare for users. Also, I understand a backdoor is different from the status quo or previous setups... not asking about a backdoor here.)
  - bagacrap 7y ago
    Messenger is encrypted, just not by default. You have to choose "private conversation" to encrypt. This is probably the right choice for most users since they'd rather have access to their messages across devices than e2e encryption.
    - elicash 7y ago
      Since I'd imagine, then, that 99% or more aren't encrypted, what has been the biggest issue that has resulted from this? We could then judge that against the negative outcomes of law enforcement not having access to, say, WhatsApp messages.
- aftbit 7y ago
  While I support strong E2E encryption, I am not sure I buy this argument. Why couldn't they use an escrow key secured in the same ways as update signing keys? Or why couldn't they be compelled to silently push a special update that exfiltrates all of my messages in plaintext?
ashleyn 7y ago
This debate has been raging since the Clipper chip controversy 25 years ago. I worry that encryption will only continue to weaken. It already occurred in Austrailia.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  It will happen eventually, I believe. There is simply to much potential power to be wielded for politicians to ignore it long-term. Government only ever takes more power, and the common man does not care enough about this issue to stop it.
  - unnouinceput 7y ago
    I strongly disagree. It will lead to criminals having their own app to communicate while rest of normal commercial communications will be broken with potential of criminals stealing stuff left and right. All it will take is for some big politician to lose all their money in a heist for these useless attempts to forever disappear. I actually root for this to happen as fast as possible so all these attempts to go away forever already so that law enforcing agencies go do their actual job.
    - nemo44x 7y ago
      The fix for that will be to make using those levels of encryption illegal and to put you under suspicion for criminal activity (suspicion of terrorism, for instance) in addition to the criminal activity of using that type of encryption in the first place. Yes, routing mechanisms, etc exist to make it harder to find out who is using the encryption but the law enforcement power could then also be extended to take down anyone participating in such a network as well as setting up honeypots that somehow get around entrapment laws.
      - nitwit005 7y ago
        Criminals, almost by definition, are good at doing things without law enforcement catching on. It's possible to try to crack down on this stuff, but like anything else they'll only catch the less competent people.
cronix 7y ago
> Mr. Barr has said that Facebook’s moves toward end-to-end encryption, which shields the content of messages from everyone but the sender and recipient, makes it harder for law enforcement officers to track malicious behavior online. It's kind of supposed to be hard, by design. Read the constitution on what it takes to get a search warrant. You're not supposed to be "tracking malicious behavior." You're supposed to be tracking individuals, once you have some sort of actual tangible proof that a judge individually signs off on, that they are doing something nefarious. It wasn't supposed to be a drag net fishing expedition where you can key word search everything anybody has ever said via a digital device at any point in history. No, they were pretty clear about that when they wrote that pesky constitution thingy (and for good reason.)
- tantalor 7y ago
  You mention warrants... please explain how to serve a warrant for E2E encrypted messages without alerting the sender or recipient.
  - akersten 7y ago
    Looks like law enforcement might have to do their job the hard way and sit outside the target's house or something crazy difficult like that! Not our job as technologists to enable the surveillance state.
    - everdrive 7y ago
      >Not our job as technologists to enable the surveillance state. Now, let's get back to work on getting facial recognition built into airplane seats.
    - JustSomeNobody 7y ago
      > Not our job as technologists to enable the surveillance state. For the government (ie: "the state"). Surveillance of employees and customers is just fine.
      - 7y ago
sehugg 7y ago
This is the same William Barr that released an official DOJ statement yesterday claiming abuse of the FISA courts, no? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-william-p-barr-inspector-generals-report-review-four-fisa https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-wi...
- davidw 7y ago
  Yes, this Bill Barr: https://gen.medium.com/is-william-barr-the-head-of-doj-or-qanon-58d68fc3a31 https://gen.medium.com/is-william-barr-the-head-of-doj-or-qa... https://www.thedailybeast.com/william-barr-is-the-most-dangerous-man-in-america https://www.thedailybeast.com/william-barr-is-the-most-dange...
  - booboolayla 7y ago
    Slandering is so cheap when you're on the Democrat side. Can't wait for the prices to skyrocket!
- m1sta_ 7y ago
  Yes. The sycophant William Barr.
  - davidw 7y ago
    He is awful: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/10/travesty-is-william-barr/?tid=pm_pop https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/10/travesty-...
unnouinceput 7y ago
Let's say FB does such a move. And let's say that it's such a wonderful tech that only FBI has access to those messages. You know what will happen next? Criminals and those child molesters that Barr uses as Boogeyman will simply create an app that will have E2E encryption without any backdoor. Unfortunately for Barr technology is here and it's easy to use it.
- sjy 7y ago
  Why would a child sign up for an E2E app where it’s easier for paedophiles to anonymously groom them? Sophisticated organised criminals don’t use Facebook Messenger, but this article isn’t about them.
  - jMyles 7y ago
    One reason that a minor might seek out E2EE is that they have been prosecuted in that past for sharing photos of themselves with other minors.
dehrmann 7y ago
I don't see how the Trump administration is, on one hand, banning Chinese telecom equipment because of alleged backdoors, then turning around and asking US firms to put in backdoors. Sure, they're your backdoors, but it hurts the US's credibility.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- syshum 7y ago
  Tribalism. China and Russia == Bad US Government == Good That is the narrative they want to believe, and many Americans believe that as well Me, Government == Bad
  - jonfw 7y ago
    The idea that we think China and Russia's governments are bad because of tribalism is silly. Both of these governments operate under what's essentially a uniparty totalitarian dictatorship. China and Russia do not enjoy freedoms that the West enjoys, which means very bad news if they're able to assert authority over us.
    - syshum 7y ago
      Yes because "the west" is really respectful of Freedoms.... No nation on the planet respects liberty. None. You just have assimilated the oppression your government places on you so be something "you dont care about anyway" or "I never wanted to do X is the first place" so as to delude yourself in to the belief you are free No Different than many of the people from nations that we view as "totalitarian" but they claim to be free
      - jonfw 7y ago
        I agree that the west doesn't have as many freedoms as I would like it to have. This isn't binary. While the west isn't perfect, it very clearly has more liberty than China
xyzzyz 7y ago
> No, they were pretty clear about that when they wrote that pesky constitution thingy (and for good reason.) They were clear about many other things, but the idea of interpreting constitution as it was meant by the founders has long been dead, with the coup de grace having been delivered by Helvering v. Davis. The constitution is dead, and its skin is worn by 9 people in Supreme Court who get to decide what they want it to mean basically any way they please.
- pdonis 7y ago
  I would say that Wickard v. Filburn is a better example of a coup de grace. Setting up a social security program at least has some reasonable relationship to "provide for the general welfare". But growing food on your own land for your own consumption has no reasonable relationship to "interstate commerce".
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    I think you’re right. I think Helvering v. Davis was the mortal blow that enabled further expansion of federal government beyond, as Founders intended, the Enumerated Powers, but the Wickard v. Filburn was indeed coup the grace.
    - anfilt 7y ago
      I would disagree. The 16th amendment gave the goverment the power to do something like social security as it explicitly allows the taxing of income. The case you mention mainly concerns how the federal government may spend money collected via taxes. Wickard v. Filburn in my honest opinion seems to allow the goverment even greater involvment in personsal/individual matters under the guise of interstate commerce.
      - pdonis 7y ago
        > The 16th amendment Which was (to make the point I think you are making explicit) at least an actual amendment to the Constitution, the way changes like that are supposed to be done. One can argue about whether it was prudent policy, but at least it was using the mechanism for change that the Framers explicitly provided.
_Understated_ 7y ago
I never thought I'd say this but well done Facebook. That being said, a few things come to mind: 1. Can they hold out against the inevitable pressure that's gonna be applied now that they have actively come out against the government and said "No". 2. Does this mean they can do it but just won't do it? 3. Will we ever find out if the government secretly forces them to do it?
- qzx_pierri 7y ago
  In response to your third inquiry: They haven’t created a warrant canary, so we’ll never be able to tell. That’s the thing about Facebook: You never know what the truth is. I’ll continue to treat Messenger as compromises by the FBI/NSA.
ProfHewitt 7y ago
The real issue is "Highly-Secure Backdoors: Internet of Traitorous Things (IoTT)" as follows: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3425957 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3425957
edge17 7y ago
If anyone's interested in the history of this stuff and why government agencies have these expectations, I suggesting checking out The Puzzle Palace from James Bamford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Puzzle_Palace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Puzzle_Palace https://www.amazon.com/Puzzle-Palace-National-Intelligence-Organization/dp/0140067485/ https://www.amazon.com/Puzzle-Palace-National-Intelligence-O... After reading that book and getting a better sense of the scope of intelligence operations over a wider swath of history, these types of requests come from make a whole lot more sense (whether you agree or not, you get a sense of the place they're coming from). Not making an argument in regard to what's right or wrong, but it does provide a tangible dose of reality. Also, given this was written in the 80's and much has come to be known since then, I still think this book holds its own in terms of clarity because it discusses historical topics without the messiness of the internet, social media, etc. Bamford has several more recent books, but I have not read those.
- K0SM0S 7y ago
  Interesting, thanks for the recommendation! I recently read Permanent Record[1][2] by Edward Snowden and it'll be interesting to contrast his account from Bamford's some 30-40 years ago. I have to say, Snowden's autobiography was a fantastic read and a chilling look inside the 3-letters agencies. Highly recommended, as the topic is evidently pretty circumstancial to us right now and for the foreseeable future. Also, if you grew up anywhere near the 1980-1990's, especially as a computer geek / nerd, you'll probably love this book for nostalgic / human / relatable reasons. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Record_(autobiography) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Record_(autobiograph... [2]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/46223297-permanent-record https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/46223297-permanent-recor...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
stiray 7y ago
This backdooring of communication is a joke. Everyone wanting to hide something can pgp/gpg encrypt a message and paste it into whatever channel, from fb to irc, from email to counterstrike chat. This whole thing about protecting "children" (or whatever the latest excuse is) is the ultimate nonsense. This wont stop terrorists with enough money to organize something like 9/11, it will only enable spying on own and foreign normal cityzens who dont encrypt what they say. Everyone else who really has "something to hide" wont be affected.
- close04 7y ago
  But the terrorists... https://mamot.fr/system/media_attachments/files/001/582/923/original/e2136d6b4d317af6.jpeg https://mamot.fr/system/media_attachments/files/001/582/923/...
- ajross 7y ago
  > Everyone else who really has "something to hide" wont be affected. A tiny handful of agents for cryotographically sophisticated organizations are "just" using gpg and pastebin or whatever. In the real world, the vast majority of bad actors are using the simple/easy/obvious communication solutions delivered to them by their phones and apps. And law enforcement (for both good and bad reasons) knows this and wants access to that stuff, because they know it's possible to get it.
  - stiray 7y ago
    Yeah right. And they were living in a jungle with absolutely 0 news for last 10 years. This period is gone, even before "Eschelon" was known fact, after Snowden you really must be ignorant to avoid this news. And if you are targeting a Guatanamo bay or life long prison you are surely not. Or you are long gone. This whole sharade is targeting cityzens. I can only speculate why, one could be stupidity and ignorance, profit maybe, or even protecting establishment, mass control. I dont know. But surely it wont affect the "excuses" they are using now.
    - javagram 7y ago
scotty79 7y ago
I think the best way to think about this is that such backdoor is like giving policemen ability to travel back in time to any time and anywhere any conversation between any citizens happened (no matter about what and how private) and invisibly eavsdrop to gather any information that will be used in the court of law against people involved in the conversation. It will be used to prove something but also to discredit a person. It may also be used as a blackmail tool in the process of plea bargaining. All against possibly innocent people whose innocence is not so blatantly obvious that law enforcement can't imagine a way to attach some guilt to them. First of you can't give police such universal time machine because it doesn't exist and some coversations will be beyond their reach (because end to end encryption will not cease to exist if facebook and apple stop using it). Secondly this analogy should show to anyone, even senator, that this is not a good idea. Especially in USA.
SpikeDad 7y ago
Lets examine the character and truthfulness of both Facebook and William Barr.. There's not a grade low enough to characterize the lying and deceit of both of them. I have no trouble believing that Facebook is lying an Barr is supporting this lie. We'll have to see how fast someone is convicted based on encrypted Facebook Messages and what excuse Barr and the DOJ use to rationalize it. It's a sad day in America.
12xo 7y ago
I dont trust Facebook and frankly, dont care about end-to-end encryption as there are a myriad of ways to communicate if necessary. But I definitely do not trust Barr or the Justice Department or any AG in any way shape or form as they have proven to act immoral,criminal and are clearly beholden to their political puppet-masters and campaign donors. So in the end, its better to have both side incapable of deciphering the data than either capable.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
SN76477 7y ago
If you do not know what you are looking for you should not be looking. Serve a warrant and do it the proper way if you want to read private messages.
katerinaa 7y ago
Hi Guys, let me share this with you.. I was going through terrible times with my partner. I suspected he was cheating and I needed proof of this to back my claims. I couldn't continue with this. All I wanted was to be sure of what was going on before I make any decision. I don't make blind conclusions; I always want to see the proof for myself. I took the pain of searching for a professional hacker who can help me hack all communication applications on his phone ( WhatsApp,Text messages, Facebook, Viber, Instagram and email). I was able to meet an amazing hacker his hack services was professionally executed. All the hack was done remotely. He didn't need physical access to the phone before it was hacked. Under 6 hours, the hack was done. Between these 6 hours, I was given updates about the progress of the hack. This gave me rest of mind; it was very easy to trust his work. Contact him Via the following bellow…..EMAIL:Jamesethicalhacker@gmail. com TEXT,CALL and WHATSAPP ON :+1(775)374-4344 If you are interested in any of his services which ranges from phone hacking to social media account hacking, you can get through to him via his email address OR phone number and he will deliver a perfect job for you.
satysin 7y ago
Sorry but I can't and won't trust anything that has anything to do with Zuckerberg. This year I have fully deleted my Facebook and Instagram accounts and WhatsApp is going by the end of the year when I visit family for Christmas and can help them switch over. Sadly they won't be ditching WhatsApp themselves but if I can get them using something else to communicate with me and my wife hopefully over time they will see there is a world without WhatsApp. Small steps and all that. As for what we are switching to that is where I am still undecided. Signal seems the obvious choice but I want to look at all the viable options so I am open to any and all recommendations. Must haves are E2E encryption out of the box, group chat, voice and video (person to person, groups calls not needed).
willis936 7y ago
That seems tethical.
yashksagar 7y ago
Assuming that the systems are truly encrypted end-to-end, how do we know for sure that noone can actually decrypt it? I mean, apart from the Eng team that directly works on that part, are we basically trusting them at face value that it works? Or does this code need to live in an open-sourced environment so as to make it more trustworthy? To be clear, I don't mean trusting the encryption algorithm, that part is easy because math. I mean trusting that that algorithm is actually what's being used under the hood and actually noone can decrypt it for any reason.
- brokenmachine 7y ago
  There has to be some level of trust at some point, unless you are going to create your own phone and all the apps on it from scratch.
BLKNSLVR 7y ago
We've had innumerable discussions about the practical impossibility of what various Governments are asking for in relation to encryption. Those who know... know. There's no more debate needed, the mathematics speaks for itself, the history of security breaches speaks for itself (and is only ever gaining in its volume of evidence). The technology industry needs a template reply referring to the obvious examples of the two pillars, mathematics and history of security breaches, to dismissively reply to any further such requests now and anytime in the future. We shouldn't need to get caught up in any of their cleverly constructed strawman arguments and appeals to emotion. Those who keep bringing these topics up are essentially performing a DoS on the technology industry by tying up resources having to argue established fundamental truths and logic over and over. So, why do we have to keep spinning our tyres on this? 1. Control: The well established push towards surveillance and the police state that protects the status quo. Technology has accelerated the enablement of this. 2. Power: The powers-that-be don't like being told by 'nerds and geeks' what is and is not possible, despite the very same 'nerds and geeks' creating the technology that has enabled the acceleration of Control. The technology industry's continued non-compliance undermines their desired image of Power. But, because this whole argument is so purely a power play it's not likely to stop (without fundamental changes to the fabric of society at least). As such, a template reply is needed to mitigate this DoS
- nl 7y ago
  This comment is wrong on so many levels. It is absolutely technically possible to provided communications with the ability for a government to read them. No one debates that. Many claim that the security and privacy trade off in doing that is not worthwhile. The technology industry needs a template reply referring to the obvious examples of the two pillars, mathematics and history of security breaches, to dismissively reply to any further such requests now and anytime in the future. We shouldn't need to get caught up in any of their cleverly constructed strawman arguments and appeals to emotion. This is absolutely the wrong response. This is a political argument, and the correct response is in the field of politics, not a glib template argument that appeals to technologists view on security trade-offs.
  - 7y ago
wheelerwj 7y ago
no body believes anything Facebook says
_mr47 7y ago
Here's that marketing scheme again. Apple did it first a while back, so I assume now we can be assured we are safe.
prirun 7y ago
Criminals will always be able to easily encrypt messages, unless math is banned. Is the government going to ban every language that has simple encryption libraries? You can easily create your own private keys and encrypt your own messages with a few lines of Python code, and no one can break it. I don't think this is about child porn or terrorists at all. They're only the usual justification for wanting to snoop on everyone.

355 points by i_am_not_elon 7y ago

plicense 7y ago

How I wish this article's title was "Facebook Tells Barr it Can't Open up Encrypted Messages".

bonestamp2 7y ago
From the content of the article it also seems like it maybe should have that title. In the body they say they won't open their messaging product to law enforcement. Nowhere does it suggest (or deny) they can open messages. Some clarity on this would be nice.
ImminentFate 7y ago
If you read the article, it’s talking about not putting in a backdoor, and not Facebook saying “we have access to all encrypted messages, we’re just not giving them to you”. As it stands, they’re end-to-end encrypted so not even Facebook can’t see your messages, and that’s what Barr doesn’t like
- SilasX 7y ago
  Why is everyone so confident Facebook hasn’t already backdoored it?
  - bytematic 7y ago
    Not sure the fallout of the public finding out would be worth it over the value add of reading messages, maybe I'm wrong but that's how I would look at it.
  - excalibur 7y ago
    They have in a manner of speaking. The communication channel is still encrypted, they just run their surveillance algorithms directly on your device. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2019/05/05/facebook-just-gave-repressive-regimes-the-ultimate-surveillance-blueprint/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2019/05/05/faceboo...
    - throwaway824721 7y ago
      That Forbes article was wrong: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20587643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20587643
      - driminicus 7y ago
        Facebook says in a hn post that the article is wrong, but I have no real reason to trust Facebook, given their track record.
        mentat 7y ago
        > if we ever did it would be quite obvious and detectable that we had done it. It's running in your device, you don't have to trust them if you have technical skill.
        driminicus 7y ago
        I have little desire to decompile every update and/or constantly analyse what their app is doing. They've proven to be untrustworthy on multiple occasions, and haven't given me much reason to think they've changed. They might convince me if they open their client and server code, but even then they're yet another walled garden only interested in keeping their monopoly by building inferior products and using regularly capture to prevent any competition from doing the same thing they did to MySpace.
        bduerst 7y ago
        You can't read encrypted packages being sent by the app. The message telemetry could be bundled by the app with other telemetry and you wouldn't know despite your technical skill.
      - badrequest 7y ago
        only if you choose to believe Facebook it was
      - SilasX 7y ago
  - likpok 7y ago
    People regularly reverse engineer the Facebook apps to see what’s inside. (For example: Jane Wong)
  - nighthawk24 7y ago
    Don't trust closed source software for encryption.
- tantalor 7y ago
  > they’re end-to-end encrypted so not even Facebook can’t see your messages Not quite. Facebook still controls the endpoints, so when you see the message so can they. This is obvious: you use their app to view the encrypted message, hence the app has access to the cleartext. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endpoint_security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endpoint_security
  - fooker 7y ago
    This seems like a extreme argument. If the app is not phoning home with the cleartext, this seems okay. You need some software to retrieve/read text anyway, so this becomes an exercise about trusting trust, etc.
    - TimTheTinker 7y ago
      > This seems like a extreme argument. Not at all. Good security often involves some black-and-white thinking, which not everyone is accustomed to. If Facebook controls the endpoint, then they have the power to access the plaintext, full stop. Using their product (hopefully) implies a choice to trust them not to abuse such access.
      - gimmeThaBeet 7y ago
        > Using their product (hopefully) implies a choice to trust them not to abuse such access. Which is what...they said?
      - ip26 7y ago
        Although I argue the black-and-white "everyone is a potential adversary" thinking is misguided. Your threat model determines requisite security measures, and you usually have to trust someone. (Although Facebook should probably not be that someone)
      - fooker 7y ago
        Ok, what about the closed source hardware in the phones? Would you argue against all encryption because clearly the CPU maker has a similar access to all decrypted content?
csunbird 7y ago
Agreed. "Can't" implies they are unable to do it at all, which means they will not give the information to random LEO requests, because they simply can't. "Won't" implies they select who they want to give the data to, which mean they probably give that data to other actors, without users even knowing about it.
- pjkundert 7y ago
  It's surprising to me that so many people give the benefit of the doubt to enterprises, when they (at huge effort and expense) emit "mealy-mouthed" rebuttals that leave open the possibility that they actually are doing evil. These people aren't stupid, and their legal and PR teams understand the fine details of the English language. It says what they mean to say, not what we wish it would say. They "Won't". Not that they "Can't".
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >It surprising to me that so many people give the benefit of the doubt to enterprises, when they (at huge effort and expense) emit "mealy-mouthed" rebuttals that leave open the possibility that they actually are doing evil. And the alternative is an organization which has an absolutely stellar track record at not doing evil (obvious sarcasm should hopefully be obvious). Neither party is can be taken at at face value here.
- daveFNbuck 7y ago
  How would a can't be possible here? They're being asked to modify the client code to enable surveillance. A client can't be secure against changes to its own code, and a protocol can't be secure against the client sharing the data it receives.
brink 7y ago
It sounds like you're asking for a clickbait title.
fareesh 7y ago
If I login to Facebook.com from any random device+browser, I seem to be able to read my "Facebook Messenger" history - maybe this is different if I use the Messenger app, but it seems like there's no E2EE here since I get the plaintext from anywhere. On WhatsApp there seems to be E2EE enabled but I have no idea what the keys are. A layperson definitely has no idea what the keys are. Could Facebook build an "NSA mode" where the old keys (K1) are quietly replaced with some known keys (K2) for a particular user at a particular timestamp T? This means that all messages before T are to be parsed by using K1 and all messages after T are to be parsed by using K2. As a WhatsApp user, would I even know if "NSA mode" has been enabled for my account? This would enable courts to allow surveillance for all future messages, but the old messages would still be E2EE. What if you involve Apple+Google into the mix and have them silently deploy a rogue update to a particular user's WhatsApp program - couldn't you just ask a court to write some kind of surveillance warrant which orders the 3 companies to work together to give the alphabet agency a way to remotely take the keys?
- ehnto 7y ago
  That's exactly what the Assistance and Access Act of 2018 in Australia was for. It allows law enforcement to compel third parties to subvert encryption. This doesn't necessarily mean break the encryption itself, but could mean deploying a malicious update to a target device that keylogs or screen captures, or otherwise allows eavesdropping. Keep an eye out for similar bills in your respective governments, it passed without struggle in Australia despite the seemingly negative opinion the public and media had on the issue. https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/national-security/lawful-access-telecommunications/data-encryption https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/natio...
- jaywalk 7y ago
  Facebook Messenger conversations are not E2EE by default. When you start one, you have to choose "Secret" in order for E2EE to be applied. This is only available from the Messenger app on mobile devices.
  - BelleOfTheBall 7y ago
blackboxlogic 7y ago
Or even "Barr Tells Facebook it Can't Open up Encrypted Messages"?

rock_hard 7y ago

Mirror without paywall: https://montrealtimes.news/facebook-tells-barr-it-wont-open-up-encrypted-messages/ https://montrealtimes.news/facebook-tells-barr-it-wont-open-...

zadkey 7y ago

"It is simply impossible to create such a backdoor for one purpose and not expect others to try and open it." While I don't like or use Facebook. I can't agree more with this sentiment.

elicash 7y ago
I do too. However, one thing I'd be curious to learn more about from this community... Facebook Messenger isn't encrypted now. What are the biggest examples where that has hurt users. I'm sure it happens, maybe frequently, but one thing that's impossible to get a sense of is the SIZE of the tradeoffs here. What's the biggest thing that's happened that we know about? Listening to the tech lawyers today at the Senate hearing, the pro-privacy side hasn't made a clear argument about just how bad it is now in FB's case, and just how bad it was before several years ago in Apple's case. (For FB you can understand why they wouldn't want to say their current system is a nightmare for users. Also, I understand a backdoor is different from the status quo or previous setups... not asking about a backdoor here.)
- bagacrap 7y ago
  Messenger is encrypted, just not by default. You have to choose "private conversation" to encrypt. This is probably the right choice for most users since they'd rather have access to their messages across devices than e2e encryption.
  - elicash 7y ago
    Since I'd imagine, then, that 99% or more aren't encrypted, what has been the biggest issue that has resulted from this? We could then judge that against the negative outcomes of law enforcement not having access to, say, WhatsApp messages.
aftbit 7y ago
While I support strong E2E encryption, I am not sure I buy this argument. Why couldn't they use an escrow key secured in the same ways as update signing keys? Or why couldn't they be compelled to silently push a special update that exfiltrates all of my messages in plaintext?

ashleyn 7y ago

This debate has been raging since the Clipper chip controversy 25 years ago. I worry that encryption will only continue to weaken. It already occurred in Austrailia.

big_chungus 7y ago
It will happen eventually, I believe. There is simply to much potential power to be wielded for politicians to ignore it long-term. Government only ever takes more power, and the common man does not care enough about this issue to stop it.
- unnouinceput 7y ago
  I strongly disagree. It will lead to criminals having their own app to communicate while rest of normal commercial communications will be broken with potential of criminals stealing stuff left and right. All it will take is for some big politician to lose all their money in a heist for these useless attempts to forever disappear. I actually root for this to happen as fast as possible so all these attempts to go away forever already so that law enforcing agencies go do their actual job.
  - nemo44x 7y ago
    The fix for that will be to make using those levels of encryption illegal and to put you under suspicion for criminal activity (suspicion of terrorism, for instance) in addition to the criminal activity of using that type of encryption in the first place. Yes, routing mechanisms, etc exist to make it harder to find out who is using the encryption but the law enforcement power could then also be extended to take down anyone participating in such a network as well as setting up honeypots that somehow get around entrapment laws.
    - nitwit005 7y ago
      Criminals, almost by definition, are good at doing things without law enforcement catching on. It's possible to try to crack down on this stuff, but like anything else they'll only catch the less competent people.

cronix 7y ago

> Mr. Barr has said that Facebook’s moves toward end-to-end encryption, which shields the content of messages from everyone but the sender and recipient, makes it harder for law enforcement officers to track malicious behavior online. It's kind of supposed to be hard, by design. Read the constitution on what it takes to get a search warrant. You're not supposed to be "tracking malicious behavior." You're supposed to be tracking individuals, once you have some sort of actual tangible proof that a judge individually signs off on, that they are doing something nefarious. It wasn't supposed to be a drag net fishing expedition where you can key word search everything anybody has ever said via a digital device at any point in history. No, they were pretty clear about that when they wrote that pesky constitution thingy (and for good reason.)

tantalor 7y ago
You mention warrants... please explain how to serve a warrant for E2E encrypted messages without alerting the sender or recipient.
- akersten 7y ago
  Looks like law enforcement might have to do their job the hard way and sit outside the target's house or something crazy difficult like that! Not our job as technologists to enable the surveillance state.
  - everdrive 7y ago
    >Not our job as technologists to enable the surveillance state. Now, let's get back to work on getting facial recognition built into airplane seats.
  - JustSomeNobody 7y ago
    > Not our job as technologists to enable the surveillance state. For the government (ie: "the state"). Surveillance of employees and customers is just fine.
    - 7y ago

sehugg 7y ago

This is the same William Barr that released an official DOJ statement yesterday claiming abuse of the FISA courts, no? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-william-p-barr-inspector-generals-report-review-four-fisa https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-wi...

davidw 7y ago
Yes, this Bill Barr: https://gen.medium.com/is-william-barr-the-head-of-doj-or-qanon-58d68fc3a31 https://gen.medium.com/is-william-barr-the-head-of-doj-or-qa... https://www.thedailybeast.com/william-barr-is-the-most-dangerous-man-in-america https://www.thedailybeast.com/william-barr-is-the-most-dange...
- booboolayla 7y ago
  Slandering is so cheap when you're on the Democrat side. Can't wait for the prices to skyrocket!
m1sta_ 7y ago
Yes. The sycophant William Barr.
- davidw 7y ago
  He is awful: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/10/travesty-is-william-barr/?tid=pm_pop https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/10/travesty-...

unnouinceput 7y ago

Let's say FB does such a move. And let's say that it's such a wonderful tech that only FBI has access to those messages. You know what will happen next? Criminals and those child molesters that Barr uses as Boogeyman will simply create an app that will have E2E encryption without any backdoor. Unfortunately for Barr technology is here and it's easy to use it.

sjy 7y ago
Why would a child sign up for an E2E app where it’s easier for paedophiles to anonymously groom them? Sophisticated organised criminals don’t use Facebook Messenger, but this article isn’t about them.
- jMyles 7y ago
  One reason that a minor might seek out E2EE is that they have been prosecuted in that past for sharing photos of themselves with other minors.

dehrmann 7y ago

I don't see how the Trump administration is, on one hand, banning Chinese telecom equipment because of alleged backdoors, then turning around and asking US firms to put in backdoors. Sure, they're your backdoors, but it hurts the US's credibility.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
syshum 7y ago
Tribalism. China and Russia == Bad US Government == Good That is the narrative they want to believe, and many Americans believe that as well Me, Government == Bad
- jonfw 7y ago
  The idea that we think China and Russia's governments are bad because of tribalism is silly. Both of these governments operate under what's essentially a uniparty totalitarian dictatorship. China and Russia do not enjoy freedoms that the West enjoys, which means very bad news if they're able to assert authority over us.
  - syshum 7y ago
    Yes because "the west" is really respectful of Freedoms.... No nation on the planet respects liberty. None. You just have assimilated the oppression your government places on you so be something "you dont care about anyway" or "I never wanted to do X is the first place" so as to delude yourself in to the belief you are free No Different than many of the people from nations that we view as "totalitarian" but they claim to be free
    - jonfw 7y ago
      I agree that the west doesn't have as many freedoms as I would like it to have. This isn't binary. While the west isn't perfect, it very clearly has more liberty than China

xyzzyz 7y ago

> No, they were pretty clear about that when they wrote that pesky constitution thingy (and for good reason.) They were clear about many other things, but the idea of interpreting constitution as it was meant by the founders has long been dead, with the coup de grace having been delivered by Helvering v. Davis. The constitution is dead, and its skin is worn by 9 people in Supreme Court who get to decide what they want it to mean basically any way they please.

pdonis 7y ago
I would say that Wickard v. Filburn is a better example of a coup de grace. Setting up a social security program at least has some reasonable relationship to "provide for the general welfare". But growing food on your own land for your own consumption has no reasonable relationship to "interstate commerce".
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  I think you’re right. I think Helvering v. Davis was the mortal blow that enabled further expansion of federal government beyond, as Founders intended, the Enumerated Powers, but the Wickard v. Filburn was indeed coup the grace.
  - anfilt 7y ago
    I would disagree. The 16th amendment gave the goverment the power to do something like social security as it explicitly allows the taxing of income. The case you mention mainly concerns how the federal government may spend money collected via taxes. Wickard v. Filburn in my honest opinion seems to allow the goverment even greater involvment in personsal/individual matters under the guise of interstate commerce.
    - pdonis 7y ago
      > The 16th amendment Which was (to make the point I think you are making explicit) at least an actual amendment to the Constitution, the way changes like that are supposed to be done. One can argue about whether it was prudent policy, but at least it was using the mechanism for change that the Framers explicitly provided.

_Understated_ 7y ago

I never thought I'd say this but well done Facebook. That being said, a few things come to mind: 1. Can they hold out against the inevitable pressure that's gonna be applied now that they have actively come out against the government and said "No". 2. Does this mean they can do it but just won't do it? 3. Will we ever find out if the government secretly forces them to do it?

qzx_pierri 7y ago
In response to your third inquiry: They haven’t created a warrant canary, so we’ll never be able to tell. That’s the thing about Facebook: You never know what the truth is. I’ll continue to treat Messenger as compromises by the FBI/NSA.

ProfHewitt 7y ago

The real issue is "Highly-Secure Backdoors: Internet of Traitorous Things (IoTT)" as follows: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3425957 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3425957

edge17 7y ago

If anyone's interested in the history of this stuff and why government agencies have these expectations, I suggesting checking out The Puzzle Palace from James Bamford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Puzzle_Palace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Puzzle_Palace https://www.amazon.com/Puzzle-Palace-National-Intelligence-Organization/dp/0140067485/ https://www.amazon.com/Puzzle-Palace-National-Intelligence-O... After reading that book and getting a better sense of the scope of intelligence operations over a wider swath of history, these types of requests come from make a whole lot more sense (whether you agree or not, you get a sense of the place they're coming from). Not making an argument in regard to what's right or wrong, but it does provide a tangible dose of reality. Also, given this was written in the 80's and much has come to be known since then, I still think this book holds its own in terms of clarity because it discusses historical topics without the messiness of the internet, social media, etc. Bamford has several more recent books, but I have not read those.

K0SM0S 7y ago
Interesting, thanks for the recommendation! I recently read Permanent Record[1][2] by Edward Snowden and it'll be interesting to contrast his account from Bamford's some 30-40 years ago. I have to say, Snowden's autobiography was a fantastic read and a chilling look inside the 3-letters agencies. Highly recommended, as the topic is evidently pretty circumstancial to us right now and for the foreseeable future. Also, if you grew up anywhere near the 1980-1990's, especially as a computer geek / nerd, you'll probably love this book for nostalgic / human / relatable reasons. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Record_(autobiography) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Record_(autobiograph... [2]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/46223297-permanent-record https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/46223297-permanent-recor...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

stiray 7y ago

This backdooring of communication is a joke. Everyone wanting to hide something can pgp/gpg encrypt a message and paste it into whatever channel, from fb to irc, from email to counterstrike chat. This whole thing about protecting "children" (or whatever the latest excuse is) is the ultimate nonsense. This wont stop terrorists with enough money to organize something like 9/11, it will only enable spying on own and foreign normal cityzens who dont encrypt what they say. Everyone else who really has "something to hide" wont be affected.

close04 7y ago
But the terrorists... https://mamot.fr/system/media_attachments/files/001/582/923/original/e2136d6b4d317af6.jpeg https://mamot.fr/system/media_attachments/files/001/582/923/...
ajross 7y ago
> Everyone else who really has "something to hide" wont be affected. A tiny handful of agents for cryotographically sophisticated organizations are "just" using gpg and pastebin or whatever. In the real world, the vast majority of bad actors are using the simple/easy/obvious communication solutions delivered to them by their phones and apps. And law enforcement (for both good and bad reasons) knows this and wants access to that stuff, because they know it's possible to get it.
- stiray 7y ago
  Yeah right. And they were living in a jungle with absolutely 0 news for last 10 years. This period is gone, even before "Eschelon" was known fact, after Snowden you really must be ignorant to avoid this news. And if you are targeting a Guatanamo bay or life long prison you are surely not. Or you are long gone. This whole sharade is targeting cityzens. I can only speculate why, one could be stupidity and ignorance, profit maybe, or even protecting establishment, mass control. I dont know. But surely it wont affect the "excuses" they are using now.
  - javagram 7y ago

scotty79 7y ago

I think the best way to think about this is that such backdoor is like giving policemen ability to travel back in time to any time and anywhere any conversation between any citizens happened (no matter about what and how private) and invisibly eavsdrop to gather any information that will be used in the court of law against people involved in the conversation. It will be used to prove something but also to discredit a person. It may also be used as a blackmail tool in the process of plea bargaining. All against possibly innocent people whose innocence is not so blatantly obvious that law enforcement can't imagine a way to attach some guilt to them. First of you can't give police such universal time machine because it doesn't exist and some coversations will be beyond their reach (because end to end encryption will not cease to exist if facebook and apple stop using it). Secondly this analogy should show to anyone, even senator, that this is not a good idea. Especially in USA.

SpikeDad 7y ago

Lets examine the character and truthfulness of both Facebook and William Barr.. There's not a grade low enough to characterize the lying and deceit of both of them. I have no trouble believing that Facebook is lying an Barr is supporting this lie. We'll have to see how fast someone is convicted based on encrypted Facebook Messages and what excuse Barr and the DOJ use to rationalize it. It's a sad day in America.

12xo 7y ago

I dont trust Facebook and frankly, dont care about end-to-end encryption as there are a myriad of ways to communicate if necessary. But I definitely do not trust Barr or the Justice Department or any AG in any way shape or form as they have proven to act immoral,criminal and are clearly beholden to their political puppet-masters and campaign donors. So in the end, its better to have both side incapable of deciphering the data than either capable.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

SN76477 7y ago

If you do not know what you are looking for you should not be looking. Serve a warrant and do it the proper way if you want to read private messages.

katerinaa 7y ago

Hi Guys, let me share this with you.. I was going through terrible times with my partner. I suspected he was cheating and I needed proof of this to back my claims. I couldn't continue with this. All I wanted was to be sure of what was going on before I make any decision. I don't make blind conclusions; I always want to see the proof for myself. I took the pain of searching for a professional hacker who can help me hack all communication applications on his phone ( WhatsApp,Text messages, Facebook, Viber, Instagram and email). I was able to meet an amazing hacker his hack services was professionally executed. All the hack was done remotely. He didn't need physical access to the phone before it was hacked. Under 6 hours, the hack was done. Between these 6 hours, I was given updates about the progress of the hack. This gave me rest of mind; it was very easy to trust his work. Contact him Via the following bellow…..EMAIL:Jamesethicalhacker@gmail. com TEXT,CALL and WHATSAPP ON :+1(775)374-4344 If you are interested in any of his services which ranges from phone hacking to social media account hacking, you can get through to him via his email address OR phone number and he will deliver a perfect job for you.

satysin 7y ago

Sorry but I can't and won't trust anything that has anything to do with Zuckerberg. This year I have fully deleted my Facebook and Instagram accounts and WhatsApp is going by the end of the year when I visit family for Christmas and can help them switch over. Sadly they won't be ditching WhatsApp themselves but if I can get them using something else to communicate with me and my wife hopefully over time they will see there is a world without WhatsApp. Small steps and all that. As for what we are switching to that is where I am still undecided. Signal seems the obvious choice but I want to look at all the viable options so I am open to any and all recommendations. Must haves are E2E encryption out of the box, group chat, voice and video (person to person, groups calls not needed).

willis936 7y ago

That seems tethical.

yashksagar 7y ago

Assuming that the systems are truly encrypted end-to-end, how do we know for sure that noone can actually decrypt it? I mean, apart from the Eng team that directly works on that part, are we basically trusting them at face value that it works? Or does this code need to live in an open-sourced environment so as to make it more trustworthy? To be clear, I don't mean trusting the encryption algorithm, that part is easy because math. I mean trusting that that algorithm is actually what's being used under the hood and actually noone can decrypt it for any reason.

brokenmachine 7y ago
There has to be some level of trust at some point, unless you are going to create your own phone and all the apps on it from scratch.

BLKNSLVR 7y ago

We've had innumerable discussions about the practical impossibility of what various Governments are asking for in relation to encryption. Those who know... know. There's no more debate needed, the mathematics speaks for itself, the history of security breaches speaks for itself (and is only ever gaining in its volume of evidence). The technology industry needs a template reply referring to the obvious examples of the two pillars, mathematics and history of security breaches, to dismissively reply to any further such requests now and anytime in the future. We shouldn't need to get caught up in any of their cleverly constructed strawman arguments and appeals to emotion. Those who keep bringing these topics up are essentially performing a DoS on the technology industry by tying up resources having to argue established fundamental truths and logic over and over. So, why do we have to keep spinning our tyres on this? 1. Control: The well established push towards surveillance and the police state that protects the status quo. Technology has accelerated the enablement of this. 2. Power: The powers-that-be don't like being told by 'nerds and geeks' what is and is not possible, despite the very same 'nerds and geeks' creating the technology that has enabled the acceleration of Control. The technology industry's continued non-compliance undermines their desired image of Power. But, because this whole argument is so purely a power play it's not likely to stop (without fundamental changes to the fabric of society at least). As such, a template reply is needed to mitigate this DoS

nl 7y ago
This comment is wrong on so many levels. It is absolutely technically possible to provided communications with the ability for a government to read them. No one debates that. Many claim that the security and privacy trade off in doing that is not worthwhile. The technology industry needs a template reply referring to the obvious examples of the two pillars, mathematics and history of security breaches, to dismissively reply to any further such requests now and anytime in the future. We shouldn't need to get caught up in any of their cleverly constructed strawman arguments and appeals to emotion. This is absolutely the wrong response. This is a political argument, and the correct response is in the field of politics, not a glib template argument that appeals to technologists view on security trade-offs.
- 7y ago

wheelerwj 7y ago

no body believes anything Facebook says

_mr47 7y ago

Here's that marketing scheme again. Apple did it first a while back, so I assume now we can be assured we are safe.

prirun 7y ago

Criminals will always be able to easily encrypt messages, unless math is banned. Is the government going to ban every language that has simple encryption libraries? You can easily create your own private keys and encrypt your own messages with a few lines of Python code, and no one can break it. I don't think this is about child porn or terrorists at all. They're only the usual justification for wanting to snoop on everyone.