3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoAlthough 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 agoOk, 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?
- lmm 7y agoI'd argue for not trusting a cryptosystem that requires you to use a particular vendor's CPUs. Open standards and independent implementations at every level should be table stakes.