6 ms·

Signal Is a Government Op

57 points by jason0597 6y ago

Majestic121 6y ago
> As you can see from the way Parler was shutdown last week — when our imperial oligarchy wants to cancel an app, it can do so instantly and with a vengeance. I was not under the impression that Parler was shut down by the government, but more by the "cancel crowd". Was it a government operation ? As for the article, it seems the main arguments are that : - Signal was financed by Radio Free Asia (US government propaganda operation), at least 3 million. - If the crypto was effectively unbreakable, it would not be recommended by big companies like FB, Google, etc... It's interesting and it's always good to be a bit paranoid, but the evidence is a bit thin for me.
- viraptor 6y ago
  Correct, government did not force Parler to shut down. > If the crypto was effectively unbreakable, it would not be recommended by big companies like FB, Google, etc... This claim falls apart given that Google started encrypting traffic on private links after learning of us gov snooping on their traffic. Also, why would Google care about breaking signal traffic at all?
  - insensible 6y ago
    This assumes that the NSA and CIA are partners, not adversaries.
- bitwize 6y ago
  Parler was shut down by Amazon for hosting hate speech in violation of Amazon's terms of service -- despite repeated attempts by Amazon to address the issue in more amicable fashion.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bildung 6y ago
  Most of these points are also true for other cryptography related projects (e.g. Tor), simply because the majority of all non-profits, regardless of agenda, is funded by the government.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  This is an ad… the blog ends with a call to signup for more.
jcq3 6y ago
Quite convincing... How Signal is perceived from cryptoexperts?
- rapsey 6y ago
  Too positive. From a cryptographical perspective the protocol is solid. The problem is that if you are actually using signal to transmit sensitive (as in worth a lot of money,peoples lives, state secrets) information you are making a huge mistake. Sure no one is going to break your communication on the network. But what they are going to do is use a zero day, get into your phone and extract the signal message db and listen in on your mic and keyboard. Signal has been promoted all over the place but no one mentions this fact, and when someone does it is dismissed. There are better solutions out there but they cost money.
  - evgen 6y ago
    That is a risk with everything, it is turtles all the way down. There are not 'better solutions' available for the general public out there and anyone who claims otherwise is selling snake oil. What Signal (and similar efforts like Riot/Matrix/etc) offer is the ability to drastically raise the cost of targeting an individual and eliminate almost all risks from bulk dragnet operations. If you, specifically you, are they target of a major government then they are going to get you and there is nothing you can do about it other that to stop using electronic communication, but if you are not already a target then Signal provides a level of security and privacy that had previously been unavailable or difficult to use.
    - rapsey 6y ago
      Signal and to a much greater degree WhatsApp is used all over the place where it has no business being. A large number of politicians use these apps for communication all over the world for information that is actually classified. The reason it is in all these places because it is free, easy to use and supposedly secure. That the information contained can be exfiltrated would be news to them. All they know is that security proffessionals recommend Signal so that is what they use. Just use Signal has been a mantra in tech circles for a long time. This obvious fact I am bringing up is always obvious yet no one mentions it.
kowlo 6y ago
I don’t know what to believe anymore. Whether it’s true or not, it makes me question what I’m using for conversations. I suppose it doesn’t matter anyway. Is there something I can self-host for just my family? The issue of having them commit to another chat program isn’t a problem.
- ixfo 6y ago
  Matrix.
viraptor 6y ago
For an article with "Here are the cold hard facts" I wanted to put [citation needed] on quite a lot of claims. I also feel like mentioning to the author the Internet is also a government op if we go that way.
- floss_silicate 6y ago
  “The internet is a government op to spy on the populace” does appear to be the synopsis of the authors book, linked at the end of the post. So I suspect this post is really just an elaborate bit of spam.
  - lame-robot-hoax 6y ago
    It’s pretty much an ad for the book. This post can pretty much be boiled down to “Open Whisper Systems received 3 million in funding from Radio Free Asia, therefore its a government op.” The argument is standing upon legs composed of two individual twigs, shaky and weak would be an understatement.
secfirstmd 6y ago
Yasha has published rubbish trying to link the Open Tech Fund/Radio Free Asia to the CIA for years. It's not. To be honest he continues to be pushing such dangerous false conspiracy theories that risk real people, doing real work. I work on Umbrella (https://www.secfirst.org https://www.secfirst.org), a free open source project to help journalists and activists learn about and manage digital and physical security. It was initially funded by OTF. I am from Ireland, i've worked my entire life in human rights, including campaigning against CIA black sites, Iraq, NSA/GCHQ spying etc (along with the global range of issues from China to migrants). Why would I or anyone of the other hundreds of projects, work with OTF if somehow it was a CIA front? In our case, the linking of projects like ours to stupid conspiracy theories like this has endangered myself and some team members. We've had doxing and death threats from people from countries as varied as Ireland to Vietnam trying to say we are CIA/US stooges because of this crap.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  I'm not sure what you are saying here. That Open tech fund is not related to the CIA or to Radio Free Asia or that Radio free Asia is not related to the CIA? There's no doubt what agenda Radio Free Asia has and who runs it (U.S. Agency for Global Media). Something doesn't have to be directly under the CIA to do their bidding (that would be real bad spy agency work). >Why would I or anyone of the other hundreds of projects, work with OTF if somehow it was a CIA front? Im not saying they are or aren't (I have no idea) but how would you know if the CIA were behind something if they didn't tell you?
throwawayffffas 6y ago
I would say mister Levine gives the government too much credit. Just because signal has received government funding (allegedly) does not immediately mean it's a honey pot like he is insinuating. The "government" is not a single entity there are different organizations with in it with different priorities and different interests.
zahma 6y ago
And the internet is a byproduct of the military industrial complex, so I guess we should all log off now. This op-ed speculates that the CIA has somehow compromised Signal by merely funding it. There's no there there, at least not without some more compelling evidence that the CIA and Silicon Valley are colluding to spy on all the recent Signal converts. I don't know enough about Signal and e2ee, but I'm guessing more evidence would have to be supplied to cast doubt on the robustness of Signal's code.
nuisance-bear 6y ago
It's a lot easier to point at a fact everyone knows (Moxie took government money) than it is to find an exploitable bug in Signal. This article is waste of time.
chews 6y ago
Someone ate their Wheaties.
b212 6y ago
I’ve tried Signal multiple times but after Telegram it’s like moving from Facebook to MySpace from 2004. No, thank you. I’m kinda surprised people are not annoyed by Signal or WhatsApp and keep using them, to me they’re simply unbearable.
- herbst 6y ago
  Same. Even if telegram has their own issues and prolly not the best encryption. Its an amazing chat client that is not centered in the US or five eyes.
  - evgen 6y ago
    Instead it is controlled by Russians and has a history of dodgy security/crypto. Yeah, that is _much_ better.
    - herbst 6y ago
      Its kinda sad that these are the choices we have. But i do honestly think thats way better, yes
- Cederfjard 6y ago
  I’ve never used Telegram. What am I missing? WhatsApp is simple and works really well for what I’m using it for, keeping in touch with friends and family.
  - Daho0n 6y ago
    It's a great tool to keep in touch with family. For secure and private communication? Not so much unless you believe Facebook is a pillar of privacy and truth and you follow the "I have nothing to hide" fallacy.
    - Cederfjard 6y ago
      Thanks, that’s my sense of it too. However the other poster seemed to claim the experience of using Signal and WhatsApp is ”unbearable” compared to Telegram, so I wonder what it has in terms of features or user experience that makes it so much better. My guess, and pardon me if I’m a bit rude, is that the difference is features I probably don’t care about. But I’m open to be evangelized.
the_gipsy 6y ago
At the end of the page, after some unsubstantial conspiracy hints, all that's left is: > I’ve written at length about the deeper history of Signal’s government backers and the way in which crypto fits into America’s imperial machine. In fact, I dedicated two whole chapters of my book to the subject. I won’t reprint it here. But if you want to know the whole story, you can pick up Surveillance Valley at your local bookstore. Or you can check out some of the articles I’ve… > …This is a preview of a full letter that is only available to subscribers. To support my work and read the rest, sign up and read it here.
- shmageggy 6y ago
  Which I believe violates HN rules
  - jason0597 6y ago
    You are right. I made a mistake submitting this.
xc468 6y ago
Put on your tinfoil hats people, from now on we communicate with pgp encrypted pigeon mail.
floss_silicate 6y ago
I can absolutely see the objectives of US foreign policy (enable citizens of foreign powers to evade domestic surveillance) conflicting with domestic policy (bulk communications collection). It doesn’t necessarily compromise Signal, but simply highlights that government isn’t always internally efficient or consistent.
the_dune_13 6y ago
Such a lazy "article". How many audits have Open Technology Fund bankrolled? Are all those companies "Linked to Government". Seriously, it reads like someone who found that RFA started OTF and wants to ride the "Signal = bad" wave. Literally, zero value.
pharos92 6y ago
> Signal was developed by Open Whisper Systems, a for-profit corporation run by “Moxie Marlinspike,” - OWS was disolved for one. Signal is now developed by the "Signal Foundation" which is a registered 501(c)(3)non-profit. - Brian Acton (ex-WhatsApp) paid $50m startup money also > Moxie began partnering with America’s soft-power regime change apparatus — including the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (now called the U.S. Agency for Global Media) - So what. The Senate has literally approved Signal for use as a means of communication. - The US Govt. is not unified by any stretch of the imagination, there are plenty of competing interests. Some agencies want to support freedom of information, some want to suppress it. This smells like a hit-piece. Also, both the client and server source-code is freely available for review and has been reviewed independently.... https://proprivacy.com/privacy-service/review/signal https://proprivacy.com/privacy-service/review/signal Realistically only the client matters, as it promises end-to-end encryption regardless of how secure/non-secure transport is. The NSA etc doesn't need to "buy" apps in this manner anyway. They just go to the manufacturer of the devices/chips/components, throw them a National Security Letter and get ring-0 exploits (or hack their way in).
psiconaut 6y ago
I honestly enjoy how Yasha equates the fact that a project received money from some tentacle of the american government (which at least for me, as an european, is perfectly understandable in a situation of prolonged cold war with Russia and China) to the more spooky hypothesis that the guys behind some of the most vetted open source privacy projects do work for the man. His well known position (many years of pando) makes me think "yeah, right, just what we need: another conspiracy that convinces people that there's no alternative and therefore any effort to step away from silos does no good to them". Sigh. The layperson only slightly interested in privacy does not want (or need) mathematical proofs: they operate by trust. Chains of trust in people, friends, activists, journalists or self-proclaimed "experts" that recommend tools or dissuade them from sharing too many data in the places where everybody of a certain age has to be to socialize. So this kind of gray insinuations, with big logical jumps and with zero consistent evidence (other than the US has an interest in promoting encryption and is pouring money on that horse too, probably orders of magnitude less than it pours in big monopolistic, closed source and privacy-mining tech companies) does more damage than good to the public it pretends to inform. But hey, I guess that's the pitch from which he manages to make a living, and it must have his public, which I might not totally be getting. Has anyone read his book by the way? Does he develop his "most of open source crypto project work for the CIA" in some interesting or novel way? Something that gets my attention is how he sells himself as unveiling the "secret" military history of the internet, when all that I read from him is public knowledge. I guess the wistleblower myth is quite attractive, even for him.
- cassepipe 6y ago
  While I agree with you, I feel like I should point out that is it indeed because people operate by trust that, maybe, accepting money from a "tentacle of the american government" is not a great PR move. Add to that the shady crypto stuff...
raverbashing 6y ago
> This is a preview of a full letter that is only available to subscribers. Enough said Also why would Snowden continue to use (and support it) it if it was the case?
nbzso 6y ago
In the rare moments when I get the naive idea of "Privacy on The Internet" tingling in my head, I kick myself in the but and reread this book: https://www.amazon.com/Where-Wizards-Stay-Up-Late/dp/0684832674 https://www.amazon.com/Where-Wizards-Stay-Up-Late/dp/0684832...
Bluestein 6y ago
Were this to have any semblance of truth, that would - interestingly - mean the government is "endorsing" crypto now, with the whole Mobile Coin situation ... Now, -that- would make it an interesting "experiment" ...
- Bluestein 6y ago
  For the sake of the downvote: Note the tentative nature of my giving this any credence - "were this to have any truth". The point still holds: It'd be interesting ...
lilyjhonson1 6y ago
Daily Reads of Business, Entertainment, Lifestyle, Health & Fitness, News, How to, What's trending, and many more publications. https://thriveverge.com/ https://thriveverge.com/
lilyjhonson1 6y ago
Getting Success in the final certification exams involve a lot of confidence and preparation. https://itexamquestions.com/ https://itexamquestions.com/
lilyjhonson1 6y ago
At DumpsArchive you will get the real, updated and accurate exam questions and answers that are necessary for good exam preparation. https://dumpsarchive.com/ https://dumpsarchive.com/
lilyjhonson1 6y ago
We curate the best marketing, technology and design related insights, tips and guides in the world. https://www.washwm.com/ https://www.washwm.com/
mtrycz2 6y ago
This article breeds uncertainty, without bringing a solution, or even a path, to the table. The references and language used, speak rather clearly that the author is part of the informal "independent research community", ie. conspiracy theorist (which unfortunately I had to acquaint myself with, because of family reasons). While I'm open for convincing, I'll chalk it up as FUD until convinced otherwise.
CodeGlitch 6y ago
> I won’t reprint it here. But if you want to know the whole story, you can pick up Surveillance Valley at your local bookstore. Or you can check out some of the articles I’ve… > …This is a preview of a full letter that is only available to subscribers. To support my work and read the rest, sign up and read it here. Says it all really. PSA's aren't supposed to be behind paywalls.
jason0597 6y ago
I made a mistake in submitting this and I apologise. I should have read the blog post more carefully.
- rijoja 6y ago
  No need, we are all intelligent here. Maybe the sources are a bit lacklustre but it still opens up for a really interesting conversation. I mean maybe someone would approve of the US government supporting free speech in lets say China. That is it is very possible that the government is supporting this covertly but with good intentions. Even if the article isn't factually correct or even clickbait it can still be food for thought and a good starting point for a discussion?
njacobs5074 6y ago
That's the great thing about conspiracy theories. They're like standards - there are just so many to choose from! ;)
sleepysysadmin 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_... CALEA legally obligates Signal to provide the government a lawful interception methodology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Collection_System_Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Collection_System_Netw... If Signal is a government op or not is unclear but it's also unnecessary. All Americans by definition do not have privacy because the government can snoop. Signal pretty much doesnt need to be a government OP.
- mr_woozy 6y ago
  >CALEA legally obligates Signal to provide the government a lawful interception methodology. Common misunderstanding but incorrect. https://www.pcmag.com/news/the-real-reason-the-feds-cant-read-your-imessages https://www.pcmag.com/news/the-real-reason-the-feds-cant-rea... " Soghoian explained that communications, "encrypted with a key not known to the company […] cannot be intercepted." So in a situation where the decryption keys are handled on the device, and not by whomever is delivering the messages, then law enforcement must ignore the message entirely. "

57 points by jason0597 6y ago

> As you can see from the way Parler was shutdown last week — when our imperial oligarchy wants to cancel an app, it can do so instantly and with a vengeance. I was not under the impression that Parler was shut down by the government, but more by the "cancel crowd". Was it a government operation ? As for the article, it seems the main arguments are that : - Signal was financed by Radio Free Asia (US government propaganda operation), at least 3 million. - If the crypto was effectively unbreakable, it would not be recommended by big companies like FB, Google, etc... It's interesting and it's always good to be a bit paranoid, but the evidence is a bit thin for me.

viraptor 6y ago
Correct, government did not force Parler to shut down. > If the crypto was effectively unbreakable, it would not be recommended by big companies like FB, Google, etc... This claim falls apart given that Google started encrypting traffic on private links after learning of us gov snooping on their traffic. Also, why would Google care about breaking signal traffic at all?
- insensible 6y ago
  This assumes that the NSA and CIA are partners, not adversaries.
bitwize 6y ago
Parler was shut down by Amazon for hosting hate speech in violation of Amazon's terms of service -- despite repeated attempts by Amazon to address the issue in more amicable fashion.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bildung 6y ago
Most of these points are also true for other cryptography related projects (e.g. Tor), simply because the majority of all non-profits, regardless of agenda, is funded by the government.
threatofrain 6y ago
This is an ad… the blog ends with a call to signup for more.

jcq3 6y ago

Quite convincing... How Signal is perceived from cryptoexperts?

rapsey 6y ago
Too positive. From a cryptographical perspective the protocol is solid. The problem is that if you are actually using signal to transmit sensitive (as in worth a lot of money,peoples lives, state secrets) information you are making a huge mistake. Sure no one is going to break your communication on the network. But what they are going to do is use a zero day, get into your phone and extract the signal message db and listen in on your mic and keyboard. Signal has been promoted all over the place but no one mentions this fact, and when someone does it is dismissed. There are better solutions out there but they cost money.
- evgen 6y ago
  That is a risk with everything, it is turtles all the way down. There are not 'better solutions' available for the general public out there and anyone who claims otherwise is selling snake oil. What Signal (and similar efforts like Riot/Matrix/etc) offer is the ability to drastically raise the cost of targeting an individual and eliminate almost all risks from bulk dragnet operations. If you, specifically you, are they target of a major government then they are going to get you and there is nothing you can do about it other that to stop using electronic communication, but if you are not already a target then Signal provides a level of security and privacy that had previously been unavailable or difficult to use.
  - rapsey 6y ago
    Signal and to a much greater degree WhatsApp is used all over the place where it has no business being. A large number of politicians use these apps for communication all over the world for information that is actually classified. The reason it is in all these places because it is free, easy to use and supposedly secure. That the information contained can be exfiltrated would be news to them. All they know is that security proffessionals recommend Signal so that is what they use. Just use Signal has been a mantra in tech circles for a long time. This obvious fact I am bringing up is always obvious yet no one mentions it.

kowlo 6y ago

I don’t know what to believe anymore. Whether it’s true or not, it makes me question what I’m using for conversations. I suppose it doesn’t matter anyway. Is there something I can self-host for just my family? The issue of having them commit to another chat program isn’t a problem.

ixfo 6y ago
Matrix.

viraptor 6y ago

For an article with "Here are the cold hard facts" I wanted to put [citation needed] on quite a lot of claims. I also feel like mentioning to the author the Internet is also a government op if we go that way.

floss_silicate 6y ago
“The internet is a government op to spy on the populace” does appear to be the synopsis of the authors book, linked at the end of the post. So I suspect this post is really just an elaborate bit of spam.
- lame-robot-hoax 6y ago
  It’s pretty much an ad for the book. This post can pretty much be boiled down to “Open Whisper Systems received 3 million in funding from Radio Free Asia, therefore its a government op.” The argument is standing upon legs composed of two individual twigs, shaky and weak would be an understatement.

secfirstmd 6y ago

Yasha has published rubbish trying to link the Open Tech Fund/Radio Free Asia to the CIA for years. It's not. To be honest he continues to be pushing such dangerous false conspiracy theories that risk real people, doing real work. I work on Umbrella (https://www.secfirst.org https://www.secfirst.org), a free open source project to help journalists and activists learn about and manage digital and physical security. It was initially funded by OTF. I am from Ireland, i've worked my entire life in human rights, including campaigning against CIA black sites, Iraq, NSA/GCHQ spying etc (along with the global range of issues from China to migrants). Why would I or anyone of the other hundreds of projects, work with OTF if somehow it was a CIA front? In our case, the linking of projects like ours to stupid conspiracy theories like this has endangered myself and some team members. We've had doxing and death threats from people from countries as varied as Ireland to Vietnam trying to say we are CIA/US stooges because of this crap.

Daho0n 6y ago
I'm not sure what you are saying here. That Open tech fund is not related to the CIA or to Radio Free Asia or that Radio free Asia is not related to the CIA? There's no doubt what agenda Radio Free Asia has and who runs it (U.S. Agency for Global Media). Something doesn't have to be directly under the CIA to do their bidding (that would be real bad spy agency work). >Why would I or anyone of the other hundreds of projects, work with OTF if somehow it was a CIA front? Im not saying they are or aren't (I have no idea) but how would you know if the CIA were behind something if they didn't tell you?

throwawayffffas 6y ago

I would say mister Levine gives the government too much credit. Just because signal has received government funding (allegedly) does not immediately mean it's a honey pot like he is insinuating. The "government" is not a single entity there are different organizations with in it with different priorities and different interests.

zahma 6y ago

And the internet is a byproduct of the military industrial complex, so I guess we should all log off now. This op-ed speculates that the CIA has somehow compromised Signal by merely funding it. There's no there there, at least not without some more compelling evidence that the CIA and Silicon Valley are colluding to spy on all the recent Signal converts. I don't know enough about Signal and e2ee, but I'm guessing more evidence would have to be supplied to cast doubt on the robustness of Signal's code.

nuisance-bear 6y ago

It's a lot easier to point at a fact everyone knows (Moxie took government money) than it is to find an exploitable bug in Signal. This article is waste of time.

chews 6y ago

Someone ate their Wheaties.

b212 6y ago

I’ve tried Signal multiple times but after Telegram it’s like moving from Facebook to MySpace from 2004. No, thank you. I’m kinda surprised people are not annoyed by Signal or WhatsApp and keep using them, to me they’re simply unbearable.

herbst 6y ago
Same. Even if telegram has their own issues and prolly not the best encryption. Its an amazing chat client that is not centered in the US or five eyes.
- evgen 6y ago
  Instead it is controlled by Russians and has a history of dodgy security/crypto. Yeah, that is _much_ better.
  - herbst 6y ago
    Its kinda sad that these are the choices we have. But i do honestly think thats way better, yes
Cederfjard 6y ago
I’ve never used Telegram. What am I missing? WhatsApp is simple and works really well for what I’m using it for, keeping in touch with friends and family.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  It's a great tool to keep in touch with family. For secure and private communication? Not so much unless you believe Facebook is a pillar of privacy and truth and you follow the "I have nothing to hide" fallacy.
  - Cederfjard 6y ago
    Thanks, that’s my sense of it too. However the other poster seemed to claim the experience of using Signal and WhatsApp is ”unbearable” compared to Telegram, so I wonder what it has in terms of features or user experience that makes it so much better. My guess, and pardon me if I’m a bit rude, is that the difference is features I probably don’t care about. But I’m open to be evangelized.

the_gipsy 6y ago

At the end of the page, after some unsubstantial conspiracy hints, all that's left is: > I’ve written at length about the deeper history of Signal’s government backers and the way in which crypto fits into America’s imperial machine. In fact, I dedicated two whole chapters of my book to the subject. I won’t reprint it here. But if you want to know the whole story, you can pick up Surveillance Valley at your local bookstore. Or you can check out some of the articles I’ve… > …This is a preview of a full letter that is only available to subscribers. To support my work and read the rest, sign up and read it here.

shmageggy 6y ago
Which I believe violates HN rules
- jason0597 6y ago
  You are right. I made a mistake submitting this.

xc468 6y ago

Put on your tinfoil hats people, from now on we communicate with pgp encrypted pigeon mail.

floss_silicate 6y ago

I can absolutely see the objectives of US foreign policy (enable citizens of foreign powers to evade domestic surveillance) conflicting with domestic policy (bulk communications collection). It doesn’t necessarily compromise Signal, but simply highlights that government isn’t always internally efficient or consistent.

the_dune_13 6y ago

Such a lazy "article". How many audits have Open Technology Fund bankrolled? Are all those companies "Linked to Government". Seriously, it reads like someone who found that RFA started OTF and wants to ride the "Signal = bad" wave. Literally, zero value.

pharos92 6y ago

> Signal was developed by Open Whisper Systems, a for-profit corporation run by “Moxie Marlinspike,” - OWS was disolved for one. Signal is now developed by the "Signal Foundation" which is a registered 501(c)(3)non-profit. - Brian Acton (ex-WhatsApp) paid $50m startup money also > Moxie began partnering with America’s soft-power regime change apparatus — including the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (now called the U.S. Agency for Global Media) - So what. The Senate has literally approved Signal for use as a means of communication. - The US Govt. is not unified by any stretch of the imagination, there are plenty of competing interests. Some agencies want to support freedom of information, some want to suppress it. This smells like a hit-piece. Also, both the client and server source-code is freely available for review and has been reviewed independently.... https://proprivacy.com/privacy-service/review/signal https://proprivacy.com/privacy-service/review/signal Realistically only the client matters, as it promises end-to-end encryption regardless of how secure/non-secure transport is. The NSA etc doesn't need to "buy" apps in this manner anyway. They just go to the manufacturer of the devices/chips/components, throw them a National Security Letter and get ring-0 exploits (or hack their way in).

psiconaut 6y ago

I honestly enjoy how Yasha equates the fact that a project received money from some tentacle of the american government (which at least for me, as an european, is perfectly understandable in a situation of prolonged cold war with Russia and China) to the more spooky hypothesis that the guys behind some of the most vetted open source privacy projects do work for the man. His well known position (many years of pando) makes me think "yeah, right, just what we need: another conspiracy that convinces people that there's no alternative and therefore any effort to step away from silos does no good to them". Sigh. The layperson only slightly interested in privacy does not want (or need) mathematical proofs: they operate by trust. Chains of trust in people, friends, activists, journalists or self-proclaimed "experts" that recommend tools or dissuade them from sharing too many data in the places where everybody of a certain age has to be to socialize. So this kind of gray insinuations, with big logical jumps and with zero consistent evidence (other than the US has an interest in promoting encryption and is pouring money on that horse too, probably orders of magnitude less than it pours in big monopolistic, closed source and privacy-mining tech companies) does more damage than good to the public it pretends to inform. But hey, I guess that's the pitch from which he manages to make a living, and it must have his public, which I might not totally be getting. Has anyone read his book by the way? Does he develop his "most of open source crypto project work for the CIA" in some interesting or novel way? Something that gets my attention is how he sells himself as unveiling the "secret" military history of the internet, when all that I read from him is public knowledge. I guess the wistleblower myth is quite attractive, even for him.

cassepipe 6y ago
While I agree with you, I feel like I should point out that is it indeed because people operate by trust that, maybe, accepting money from a "tentacle of the american government" is not a great PR move. Add to that the shady crypto stuff...

raverbashing 6y ago

> This is a preview of a full letter that is only available to subscribers. Enough said Also why would Snowden continue to use (and support it) it if it was the case?

nbzso 6y ago

In the rare moments when I get the naive idea of "Privacy on The Internet" tingling in my head, I kick myself in the but and reread this book: https://www.amazon.com/Where-Wizards-Stay-Up-Late/dp/0684832674 https://www.amazon.com/Where-Wizards-Stay-Up-Late/dp/0684832...

Bluestein 6y ago

Were this to have any semblance of truth, that would - interestingly - mean the government is "endorsing" crypto now, with the whole Mobile Coin situation ... Now, -that- would make it an interesting "experiment" ...

Bluestein 6y ago
For the sake of the downvote: Note the tentative nature of my giving this any credence - "were this to have any truth". The point still holds: It'd be interesting ...

lilyjhonson1 6y ago

Daily Reads of Business, Entertainment, Lifestyle, Health & Fitness, News, How to, What's trending, and many more publications. https://thriveverge.com/ https://thriveverge.com/

lilyjhonson1 6y ago

Getting Success in the final certification exams involve a lot of confidence and preparation. https://itexamquestions.com/ https://itexamquestions.com/

lilyjhonson1 6y ago

At DumpsArchive you will get the real, updated and accurate exam questions and answers that are necessary for good exam preparation. https://dumpsarchive.com/ https://dumpsarchive.com/

lilyjhonson1 6y ago

We curate the best marketing, technology and design related insights, tips and guides in the world. https://www.washwm.com/ https://www.washwm.com/

mtrycz2 6y ago

This article breeds uncertainty, without bringing a solution, or even a path, to the table. The references and language used, speak rather clearly that the author is part of the informal "independent research community", ie. conspiracy theorist (which unfortunately I had to acquaint myself with, because of family reasons). While I'm open for convincing, I'll chalk it up as FUD until convinced otherwise.

CodeGlitch 6y ago

> I won’t reprint it here. But if you want to know the whole story, you can pick up Surveillance Valley at your local bookstore. Or you can check out some of the articles I’ve… > …This is a preview of a full letter that is only available to subscribers. To support my work and read the rest, sign up and read it here. Says it all really. PSA's aren't supposed to be behind paywalls.

jason0597 6y ago

I made a mistake in submitting this and I apologise. I should have read the blog post more carefully.

rijoja 6y ago
No need, we are all intelligent here. Maybe the sources are a bit lacklustre but it still opens up for a really interesting conversation. I mean maybe someone would approve of the US government supporting free speech in lets say China. That is it is very possible that the government is supporting this covertly but with good intentions. Even if the article isn't factually correct or even clickbait it can still be food for thought and a good starting point for a discussion?

njacobs5074 6y ago

That's the great thing about conspiracy theories. They're like standards - there are just so many to choose from! ;)

sleepysysadmin 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_... CALEA legally obligates Signal to provide the government a lawful interception methodology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Collection_System_Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Collection_System_Netw... If Signal is a government op or not is unclear but it's also unnecessary. All Americans by definition do not have privacy because the government can snoop. Signal pretty much doesnt need to be a government OP.

mr_woozy 6y ago
>CALEA legally obligates Signal to provide the government a lawful interception methodology. Common misunderstanding but incorrect. https://www.pcmag.com/news/the-real-reason-the-feds-cant-read-your-imessages https://www.pcmag.com/news/the-real-reason-the-feds-cant-rea... " Soghoian explained that communications, "encrypted with a key not known to the company […] cannot be intercepted." So in a situation where the decryption keys are handled on the device, and not by whomever is delivering the messages, then law enforcement must ignore the message entirely. "