4 ms·

Regulation should prevent this from occurring. If you use a product that claims it is E2E and it is not, you should be able to sue wildly for potential damages

Regulation should prevent this from occurring. If you use a product that claims it is E2E and it is not, you should be able to sue wildly for potential damages given the sensitive nature of the software.

WalterBright 6y ago
> Regulation should prevent this from occurring. It already exists. It's called "fraud".
- soulofmischief 6y ago
  On one level, yes. On the other hand, I think things involving cryptography at scale ought to come with regulations on language For example, look at how the word "bank" is specially regulated by most governments. I can't just call myself a bank without meeting specific guidelines or else it's not just typical fraud, it's major financial fraud coupled with putting sensitive customer data at risk. Same here. We need specific legislation targeting these scummy businesses who use corporate ignorance as an excuse for selling a product under false pretenses of end-to-end encryption.
  - Drakim 6y ago
    Exactly. Look at what Zoom is doing, they simply redefined end2end to mean something else so that they could brag about having it.
bborud 6y ago
Well, there might be conflicting interests within government. From a consumer advocate perspective government might want to demand this. From an intelligence services perspective you might want companies to lie.
- soulofmischief 6y ago
  > From an intelligence services perspective you might want companies to lie. No, I don't. I don't want companies to lie. You can collect intelligence the same way we've been collecting intelligence for our entire history on this planet prior to E2E comms. E2E isn't a hindrance, it's a way to enforce limitations on government overreach. No freedom is without compromise.
  - bborud 6y ago
    You don't. But I'm afraid that is the reality. The only way to change that is by law and then vigorous enforcement of law. That isn't likely to happen.
  - fourthark 6y ago
    You are presumably not an intelligence agency.

WalterBright 6y ago

> Regulation should prevent this from occurring. It already exists. It's called "fraud".

soulofmischief 6y ago
On one level, yes. On the other hand, I think things involving cryptography at scale ought to come with regulations on language For example, look at how the word "bank" is specially regulated by most governments. I can't just call myself a bank without meeting specific guidelines or else it's not just typical fraud, it's major financial fraud coupled with putting sensitive customer data at risk. Same here. We need specific legislation targeting these scummy businesses who use corporate ignorance as an excuse for selling a product under false pretenses of end-to-end encryption.
- Drakim 6y ago
  Exactly. Look at what Zoom is doing, they simply redefined end2end to mean something else so that they could brag about having it.

bborud 6y ago

Well, there might be conflicting interests within government. From a consumer advocate perspective government might want to demand this. From an intelligence services perspective you might want companies to lie.

soulofmischief 6y ago
> From an intelligence services perspective you might want companies to lie. No, I don't. I don't want companies to lie. You can collect intelligence the same way we've been collecting intelligence for our entire history on this planet prior to E2E comms. E2E isn't a hindrance, it's a way to enforce limitations on government overreach. No freedom is without compromise.
- bborud 6y ago
  You don't. But I'm afraid that is the reality. The only way to change that is by law and then vigorous enforcement of law. That isn't likely to happen.
- fourthark 6y ago
  You are presumably not an intelligence agency.