37 ms·

The belief in encrypted message apps is a gold mine. In Brazil, the former president Lula has been convicted to jail. A hacker broke Telegram and got the messag

by neves 6y ago

The belief in encrypted message apps is a gold mine. In Brazil, the former president Lula has been convicted to jail. A hacker broke Telegram and got the messages that demonstrated a conspiracy between the judge and the prosecution: https://www.wired.com/story/brazil-hacker-bolsonaro-car-wash-leaks/ https://www.wired.com/story/brazil-hacker-bolsonaro-car-wash... The conviction prevented him to run for office (he was the favorite in the polls). Yesterday the ex-president got his political rights back and will probably be candidate in 2022 to try to defeat Bolsonaro. Everything due to the hacker (And the journalist Glenn Greenwald of Snowden fame)

matthewdgreen 6y ago
>The belief in encrypted message apps is a gold mine. I think you mean "the belief that non-E2E encrypted messaging apps are actually E2E-encrypted messaging apps" is a goldmine. Ditto TFA. Real E2E systems aren't invulnerable: there are certainly hacks that target endpoint devices. But it's astonishing to me how many people end up using centralized, non-E2E apps when secure ones are available.
dr_dshiv 6y ago
OMG I had no idea. Thank you. I am a news junkie. I can't believe I missed all that?!
- neves 6y ago
  Anyone wanting to know more about the case, can read this just published Glenn Greenwald's article: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/brazils-high-court-invalidates-lulas?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo0MjcxNjc1LCJwb3N0X2lkIjozMzQ1Njg4MiwiXyI6IjFjQ1VYIiwiaWF0IjoxNjE1MzgxMzE1LCJleHAiOjE2MTUzODQ5MTUsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0xMjg2NjIiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.2opEhf-mX0cURCDOBFtXqQbEguZGFpIDJS5eTFvZVUc&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share https://greenwald.substack.com/p/brazils-high-court-invalida...
matheusmoreira 6y ago
End-to-end encryption protects against interception. No encryption will help you if your phone is compromised since the data is just sitting there in the clear. The judge may have been compromised but there are also cases where brazilian judges retaliated against WhatsApp when it failed to deliver decrypted messages: https://theintercept.com/2016/05/02/whatsapp-used-by-100-million-brazilians-was-shut-down-nationwide-today-by-a-single-judge/ https://theintercept.com/2016/05/02/whatsapp-used-by-100-mil...
IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
This is fantastic content, but I should caution that in general it is not a good idea to measure international justice , using US law as your standard. The US is just simply centuries ahead of everyone else. Take for example Ex Parte. The concept of ex-parte does not exist in Brazil, or in the vast majority of the world. Case in point: Ecuador. Lawyer Danziger took on monster Texaco/Chevron and got a huge 10B judgement against them for environmental destruction. Now he's sitting in a US jail for doing something perfectly legal in the tiny andean nation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lago_Agrio_oil_field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lago_Agrio_oil_field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_R._Donziger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_R._Donziger
- TwoBit 6y ago
  "A U.S. district court later ruled in support of Chevron's allegations that the report had been ghostwritten by Mr. Donziger and his associates and an environmental consulting firm hired by the plaintiffs in addition to participating in the bribing of the deciding judge." Donziger looks like a crook according to your provided reference.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
    Sure he does. But there is 2 sides to every coin. Hundreds of people living on less than $1 per day died from painful cancer with no access to treatment - in their mid 20's - because of the oil spilled by the Oil firms there. Donziger wanted to make that right.. against overwhelming odds. He represented the impoverished victims. He starts looking somewhat decent under that light, don't you think ? Was there another way? I'm not really sure. So I go back to the facts. The law in that country, is clear. Strictly speaking, that was not illegal. We have a judge, busy, perhaps even incompetent, wanting out from a complex opinion. He took the easy road out. To anyone in the US, this would seem bad. But that sense of justice is skewed to US law, which is unfortunate because US law and procedure is lights years ahead of other countries. What I am saying is that there is room for considerations outside what is appropriate, because other legal systems are not build to defend the powerless, only the powerful. US law procedure is very good at defending the powerless. That's almost always never the case elsewhere.

by neves 6y ago

matthewdgreen 6y ago

>The belief in encrypted message apps is a gold mine. I think you mean "the belief that non-E2E encrypted messaging apps are actually E2E-encrypted messaging apps" is a goldmine. Ditto TFA. Real E2E systems aren't invulnerable: there are certainly hacks that target endpoint devices. But it's astonishing to me how many people end up using centralized, non-E2E apps when secure ones are available.

dr_dshiv 6y ago

OMG I had no idea. Thank you. I am a news junkie. I can't believe I missed all that?!

neves 6y ago
Anyone wanting to know more about the case, can read this just published Glenn Greenwald's article: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/brazils-high-court-invalidates-lulas?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo0MjcxNjc1LCJwb3N0X2lkIjozMzQ1Njg4MiwiXyI6IjFjQ1VYIiwiaWF0IjoxNjE1MzgxMzE1LCJleHAiOjE2MTUzODQ5MTUsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0xMjg2NjIiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.2opEhf-mX0cURCDOBFtXqQbEguZGFpIDJS5eTFvZVUc&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share https://greenwald.substack.com/p/brazils-high-court-invalida...

matheusmoreira 6y ago

End-to-end encryption protects against interception. No encryption will help you if your phone is compromised since the data is just sitting there in the clear. The judge may have been compromised but there are also cases where brazilian judges retaliated against WhatsApp when it failed to deliver decrypted messages: https://theintercept.com/2016/05/02/whatsapp-used-by-100-million-brazilians-was-shut-down-nationwide-today-by-a-single-judge/ https://theintercept.com/2016/05/02/whatsapp-used-by-100-mil...

IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago

This is fantastic content, but I should caution that in general it is not a good idea to measure international justice , using US law as your standard. The US is just simply centuries ahead of everyone else. Take for example Ex Parte. The concept of ex-parte does not exist in Brazil, or in the vast majority of the world. Case in point: Ecuador. Lawyer Danziger took on monster Texaco/Chevron and got a huge 10B judgement against them for environmental destruction. Now he's sitting in a US jail for doing something perfectly legal in the tiny andean nation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lago_Agrio_oil_field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lago_Agrio_oil_field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_R._Donziger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_R._Donziger

TwoBit 6y ago
"A U.S. district court later ruled in support of Chevron's allegations that the report had been ghostwritten by Mr. Donziger and his associates and an environmental consulting firm hired by the plaintiffs in addition to participating in the bribing of the deciding judge." Donziger looks like a crook according to your provided reference.
- IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
  Sure he does. But there is 2 sides to every coin. Hundreds of people living on less than $1 per day died from painful cancer with no access to treatment - in their mid 20's - because of the oil spilled by the Oil firms there. Donziger wanted to make that right.. against overwhelming odds. He represented the impoverished victims. He starts looking somewhat decent under that light, don't you think ? Was there another way? I'm not really sure. So I go back to the facts. The law in that country, is clear. Strictly speaking, that was not illegal. We have a judge, busy, perhaps even incompetent, wanting out from a complex opinion. He took the easy road out. To anyone in the US, this would seem bad. But that sense of justice is skewed to US law, which is unfortunate because US law and procedure is lights years ahead of other countries. What I am saying is that there is room for considerations outside what is appropriate, because other legal systems are not build to defend the powerless, only the powerful. US law procedure is very good at defending the powerless. That's almost always never the case elsewhere.