4 ms·

The great thing about no trust models is that even if they were comprimised it wouldnt matter

by jjcon 5y ago

e12e 5y ago
Hardly. They get your password on login, and decrypt your mail. They don't (theoretically) even need a code change, just root/kernel level access/tracing to dump the password. Unless of course you were using PGP - but then you would be about as well off with Gmail? I mean, they provide a great service, and the stack is open - but I would hesitate to call it "secure" (that goes for ProtonMail too BTW). https://0xacab.org/liberate/trees https://0xacab.org/liberate/trees
tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
Where is the no trust model there though? If riseup were a trap, they could do all the logging (in secret), find the activist, then do parallel construction for the actual evidence presented in court.
- basedrum 5y ago
  Why would they voluntarily act as agents of the state to do that? They would need to be compelled legally to do so, and to do that in the US would require a legal order that has not yet succeeded (remember the Apple case around the terrorist in San Bernadino?). Before you say, "Well, it could be done in secret", please look up the Wiretap + technical assist laws and note the disclosure requirements.
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
    Because if you don't trust them, it's plausible that some or all of the people running the infrastructure aren't actually privacy activists, but moles planted by the state, acting as agents of the state because they are employed by the state, paid by the state, and specifically tasked to pretend to be activists and build a trap. (There may be some solid evidence making this unlikely in reality, but that ultimately relies on some form of trust.)
poetaster 5y ago
Trees fails to load mobile?
poetaster 5y ago
I've never understood decrypting with login credentials. My gpg creds are distinct. My client challenges on each mail. Can be set to save for key per session, but don't.

The great thing about no trust models is that even if they were comprimised it wouldnt matter

by jjcon 5y ago

The great thing about no trust models is that even if they were comprimised it wouldnt matter

e12e 5y ago

Hardly. They get your password on login, and decrypt your mail. They don't (theoretically) even need a code change, just root/kernel level access/tracing to dump the password. Unless of course you were using PGP - but then you would be about as well off with Gmail? I mean, they provide a great service, and the stack is open - but I would hesitate to call it "secure" (that goes for ProtonMail too BTW). https://0xacab.org/liberate/trees https://0xacab.org/liberate/trees

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago

Where is the no trust model there though? If riseup were a trap, they could do all the logging (in secret), find the activist, then do parallel construction for the actual evidence presented in court.

basedrum 5y ago
Why would they voluntarily act as agents of the state to do that? They would need to be compelled legally to do so, and to do that in the US would require a legal order that has not yet succeeded (remember the Apple case around the terrorist in San Bernadino?). Before you say, "Well, it could be done in secret", please look up the Wiretap + technical assist laws and note the disclosure requirements.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  Because if you don't trust them, it's plausible that some or all of the people running the infrastructure aren't actually privacy activists, but moles planted by the state, acting as agents of the state because they are employed by the state, paid by the state, and specifically tasked to pretend to be activists and build a trap. (There may be some solid evidence making this unlikely in reality, but that ultimately relies on some form of trust.)

poetaster 5y ago

Trees fails to load mobile?

poetaster 5y ago

I've never understood decrypting with login credentials. My gpg creds are distinct. My client challenges on each mail. Can be set to save for key per session, but don't.