4 ms·

I just read yet another naging popup with assurances that my messages are private and encrypted, so how can Facebook read message to supposedly pirated movie ?

I just read yet another naging popup with assurances that my messages are private and encrypted, so how can Facebook read message to supposedly pirated movie ? .... and to accept new policy 6 sense above the E2E encryption ? How they do this ?

Areading314 5y ago
you could do it by hashing the content and then sending back the hashes to some server for them to check but really if the code is not open source it doesn't really help for them to claim E2E. You don't really have any guarantees they won't circumvent encryption.
ab_testing 5y ago
Whenever you communicate with a user or a group on WhatsApp, your phone number is visible to that user or group. If anyone of the users in that group is a rat, they can divulge all the conversations to law enforcement including all group member details. Bottom line choose your friends wisely or join seedy groups with caution.
MertsA 5y ago
Not possible, this order is to ban a list of users who got caught and future reported users not to try and identify the copyrighted material itself.
mr_toad 5y ago
> How they do this ? Easy, someone squealed. All the encryption in the world won’t do you any good if the recipient of the message can’t be trusted. And the larger the group the more likely it is that someone is a bad actor.
- salawat 5y ago
  One thing I've always wondered, and I think IETF needs to get a working group on. Where do snitches fall in reference to handling of evilness[originally defined in RFC3514]? Should the evil bit be set in reference to the activity of a group in isolation of the maliciousness of an implementation of a system operating on a network medium? Example: >A group uses a tool or protocol legitimately in the way in which it was designed [non-evil manner] to facilitate an illegal workflow [debatably evil, but at a level irrelevant to the network]. Based on RFC 3514, this group carrying out the illegal activity in a way not malicious on the to tge network SHOULD NOT set the evil bit; they are up to no mischief within the context of the network. as they are making use of hosts as they were designed to be used. A snitch within the group, however, SHOULD set the evil bit, and furthermore, if IPv6, should set the attack identifier to something appropriate since they are exploiting the implicit trust of the network in a malicious way [see RFC's 7258 and the IPv6 relevant part of 3514] Clearly, there is intent based on related work with optical switches and routing that the evilness bit should cascade appropriately between contexts, such as there being evil lambdas, and evil polarizations, etc.... How then, does one then handle the problem of "relative evilness", in which the state of the evil bit is dependent on higher order constructs, in particular where higher order activities are directly recognized to be a form of network attack, thereby warranting the setting of the evil bit by one party or the other? Note, this issue does not just impact the criminal element, as the same setup could easily afflict law enforcement by which a snitch jeopardizes legal activity through the same attack pattern, or rogue law enforcement participating in unlawful surveillance jeopardize the safety and integrity of the network. I believe the very future of security on the Internet and the integrity of activity mediated over it is at stake if we cannot reach a rough consensus on this topic.
  - fwn 5y ago
    Not sure if I understood you correctly. In our context "evil" just meant that someone breached the secrecy a group assumed to be a shared value. Encryption is never evil and the tools used to facilitate communication in democratic societies should not be equipped with traps to enforce whatever power positions exist at one time.
    - danielheath 5y ago
      The "Evil Bit" RFC is one of the famous April Fools jokes produced back when the standards body retained an excellent sense of subtle humor. I think it's safe to assume anyone that referencing it is doing so for comedic purposes.
      - fwn 5y ago
        Ha, thank you. I had no idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit
      - salawat 5y ago
        It is indeed a safe assumption in this case. I was trying to sneak in a "snitches get stitches" jab to balance out this year's establishment of the Protocol Police, but couldn't quite pull it off.
yumraj 5y ago
One option is to do it at the client layer, before messages are transmitted and have left your device. Note: I’m not advocating they do this or supporting the ask , merely providing a technical option.

Areading314 5y ago

you could do it by hashing the content and then sending back the hashes to some server for them to check but really if the code is not open source it doesn't really help for them to claim E2E. You don't really have any guarantees they won't circumvent encryption.

ab_testing 5y ago

Whenever you communicate with a user or a group on WhatsApp, your phone number is visible to that user or group. If anyone of the users in that group is a rat, they can divulge all the conversations to law enforcement including all group member details. Bottom line choose your friends wisely or join seedy groups with caution.

MertsA 5y ago

Not possible, this order is to ban a list of users who got caught and future reported users not to try and identify the copyrighted material itself.

mr_toad 5y ago

> How they do this ? Easy, someone squealed. All the encryption in the world won’t do you any good if the recipient of the message can’t be trusted. And the larger the group the more likely it is that someone is a bad actor.

salawat 5y ago
One thing I've always wondered, and I think IETF needs to get a working group on. Where do snitches fall in reference to handling of evilness[originally defined in RFC3514]? Should the evil bit be set in reference to the activity of a group in isolation of the maliciousness of an implementation of a system operating on a network medium? Example: >A group uses a tool or protocol legitimately in the way in which it was designed [non-evil manner] to facilitate an illegal workflow [debatably evil, but at a level irrelevant to the network]. Based on RFC 3514, this group carrying out the illegal activity in a way not malicious on the to tge network SHOULD NOT set the evil bit; they are up to no mischief within the context of the network. as they are making use of hosts as they were designed to be used. A snitch within the group, however, SHOULD set the evil bit, and furthermore, if IPv6, should set the attack identifier to something appropriate since they are exploiting the implicit trust of the network in a malicious way [see RFC's 7258 and the IPv6 relevant part of 3514] Clearly, there is intent based on related work with optical switches and routing that the evilness bit should cascade appropriately between contexts, such as there being evil lambdas, and evil polarizations, etc.... How then, does one then handle the problem of "relative evilness", in which the state of the evil bit is dependent on higher order constructs, in particular where higher order activities are directly recognized to be a form of network attack, thereby warranting the setting of the evil bit by one party or the other? Note, this issue does not just impact the criminal element, as the same setup could easily afflict law enforcement by which a snitch jeopardizes legal activity through the same attack pattern, or rogue law enforcement participating in unlawful surveillance jeopardize the safety and integrity of the network. I believe the very future of security on the Internet and the integrity of activity mediated over it is at stake if we cannot reach a rough consensus on this topic.
- fwn 5y ago
  Not sure if I understood you correctly. In our context "evil" just meant that someone breached the secrecy a group assumed to be a shared value. Encryption is never evil and the tools used to facilitate communication in democratic societies should not be equipped with traps to enforce whatever power positions exist at one time.
  - danielheath 5y ago
    The "Evil Bit" RFC is one of the famous April Fools jokes produced back when the standards body retained an excellent sense of subtle humor. I think it's safe to assume anyone that referencing it is doing so for comedic purposes.
    - fwn 5y ago
      Ha, thank you. I had no idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit
    - salawat 5y ago
      It is indeed a safe assumption in this case. I was trying to sneak in a "snitches get stitches" jab to balance out this year's establishment of the Protocol Police, but couldn't quite pull it off.

yumraj 5y ago

One option is to do it at the client layer, before messages are transmitted and have left your device. Note: I’m not advocating they do this or supporting the ask , merely providing a technical option.