5 ms·

This will just push people to open source applications and peer to peer networking. Basically, devolve back to the early days of the internet with regard to per

This will just push people to open source applications and peer to peer networking. Basically, devolve back to the early days of the internet with regard to person to person communications. How is the DoJ going to force Signal or even Telegram to add a back door?

JoshTriplett 7y ago
> How is the DoJ going to force Signal or even Telegram to add a back door? Hypothetically: they could easily force the Apple and Google stores to stop carrying it, or even to prevent its installation using the same mechanisms used to scan for malware. Do not underestimate the means by which use of real encryption could be made inconvenient.
three_seagrass 7y ago
They'll force device manufacturers to give access to keys locally locally. China did it with Apple's iCloud backups by just nationalizing the servers.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
I really would not be surprised if will surface that Telegram has a backdoor for Russian special services. After Anton Rosenberg's posts [1] and Durov's (very unconvincing) responses, it is clear that Durov lies a lot how Telegram operates, and it is quite likely that all their 'blocking' in Russia is just a show to boost credibility. It also should be noted, that while Telegram markets itself as the most safe and protected messenger, it's regular chats are, in fact, non-encrypted at all and are way less secure than WhatsApps. It's actually baffling, he bashes WhatsApp with such audacity [2], telling in one sentence, that 'if your phone dies, you can't access your messages on another device', and then continues preaching how cool it is to use encryption. BUT IF ONE USES END-TO-END ENCRYPTION, ONE CAN'T ACCESS MESSAGES ON ANOTHER DEVICE, BY DEFINITION!!!!! It never ceases to amaze me that people bought into this. A comfortable to use app and a really good promise of security turns out to be better than real proper security. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ [1]: https://medium.com/@anton.rozenberg/friendship-betrayal-claims-3f395bcc95fa https://medium.com/@anton.rozenberg/friendship-betrayal-clai... [2]: https://youtu.be/kVZN9QbtFgs?t=106 https://youtu.be/kVZN9QbtFgs?t=106
- boring_twenties 7y ago
  > BUT IF ONE USES END-TO-END ENCRYPTION, ONE CAN'T ACCESS MESSAGES ON ANOTHER DEVICE, BY DEFINITION!!!!! You can encrypt each message separately for each device, that's still end-to-end encryption.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
    Yeah, and load it on a completely new device by providing only login and password, too?? (Like Telegram does)
    - boring_twenties 7y ago
      Ah, no. I missed the part about it being a completely new device. This obviously only works for devices that were already authenticated when the message was first sent.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
        That's the point - Durov bashes WhatsApp for 'inconvenience' and supposed lack of privacy, but in reality this inconvenience is a result of real presence of privacy. In contrast, Telegram's convenience is a result of a real lack of privacy, because to work this way it has to have a way to decrypt user messages. Of course, they tell tales on how deeply it is all encrypted on T's servers, and that only select few trusted engineers have keys, but those are just tall tales.
Klonoar 7y ago
A method I've seen tossed around is that they'd just add a "ghost" user as a silent participant to all conversations. I'd like to think this is difficult with Signal's model, though.
throwaway373438 7y ago
Well, during the Cold War the feds declared encryption to be "Auxiliary Military Equipment," listed on the USML [1]. It was illegal -- prison time illegal -- to ship software which could encrypt communications outside the USA up until 1992 [2]. I'm old enough to remember the tail end of this and it was absolutely absurd, yet still very real. I remember Zimmermann being investigated by the feds [3]. Zimmermann was smart to tie publishing PGP to the First Amendment. Something like Signal in those days may well have resulted in charges and a conviction. Never underestimate the potential for folly when it comes to government regulation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Munitions_List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Munitions_List [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_i...
- ColanR 7y ago
  I wonder if encryption could be tied to the Second Amendment as well. I'd be interested in the legal theory discussing that. Many of the arguments I've seen here defending encryption are basically the same as those defending guns.

JoshTriplett 7y ago

> How is the DoJ going to force Signal or even Telegram to add a back door? Hypothetically: they could easily force the Apple and Google stores to stop carrying it, or even to prevent its installation using the same mechanisms used to scan for malware. Do not underestimate the means by which use of real encryption could be made inconvenient.

three_seagrass 7y ago

They'll force device manufacturers to give access to keys locally locally. China did it with Apple's iCloud backups by just nationalizing the servers.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago

I really would not be surprised if will surface that Telegram has a backdoor for Russian special services. After Anton Rosenberg's posts [1] and Durov's (very unconvincing) responses, it is clear that Durov lies a lot how Telegram operates, and it is quite likely that all their 'blocking' in Russia is just a show to boost credibility. It also should be noted, that while Telegram markets itself as the most safe and protected messenger, it's regular chats are, in fact, non-encrypted at all and are way less secure than WhatsApps. It's actually baffling, he bashes WhatsApp with such audacity [2], telling in one sentence, that 'if your phone dies, you can't access your messages on another device', and then continues preaching how cool it is to use encryption. BUT IF ONE USES END-TO-END ENCRYPTION, ONE CAN'T ACCESS MESSAGES ON ANOTHER DEVICE, BY DEFINITION!!!!! It never ceases to amaze me that people bought into this. A comfortable to use app and a really good promise of security turns out to be better than real proper security. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ [1]: https://medium.com/@anton.rozenberg/friendship-betrayal-claims-3f395bcc95fa https://medium.com/@anton.rozenberg/friendship-betrayal-clai... [2]: https://youtu.be/kVZN9QbtFgs?t=106 https://youtu.be/kVZN9QbtFgs?t=106

boring_twenties 7y ago
> BUT IF ONE USES END-TO-END ENCRYPTION, ONE CAN'T ACCESS MESSAGES ON ANOTHER DEVICE, BY DEFINITION!!!!! You can encrypt each message separately for each device, that's still end-to-end encryption.
- Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
  Yeah, and load it on a completely new device by providing only login and password, too?? (Like Telegram does)
  - boring_twenties 7y ago
    Ah, no. I missed the part about it being a completely new device. This obviously only works for devices that were already authenticated when the message was first sent.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
      That's the point - Durov bashes WhatsApp for 'inconvenience' and supposed lack of privacy, but in reality this inconvenience is a result of real presence of privacy. In contrast, Telegram's convenience is a result of a real lack of privacy, because to work this way it has to have a way to decrypt user messages. Of course, they tell tales on how deeply it is all encrypted on T's servers, and that only select few trusted engineers have keys, but those are just tall tales.

Klonoar 7y ago

A method I've seen tossed around is that they'd just add a "ghost" user as a silent participant to all conversations. I'd like to think this is difficult with Signal's model, though.

throwaway373438 7y ago

Well, during the Cold War the feds declared encryption to be "Auxiliary Military Equipment," listed on the USML [1]. It was illegal -- prison time illegal -- to ship software which could encrypt communications outside the USA up until 1992 [2]. I'm old enough to remember the tail end of this and it was absolutely absurd, yet still very real. I remember Zimmermann being investigated by the feds [3]. Zimmermann was smart to tie publishing PGP to the First Amendment. Something like Signal in those days may well have resulted in charges and a conviction. Never underestimate the potential for folly when it comes to government regulation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Munitions_List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Munitions_List [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_i...

ColanR 7y ago
I wonder if encryption could be tied to the Second Amendment as well. I'd be interested in the legal theory discussing that. Many of the arguments I've seen here defending encryption are basically the same as those defending guns.