3 ms·

> What do we want Facebook to do - not obey the law? Implement end-to-end encryption, so they cannot read or hand over private communication in the first place

by ls15 4y ago

> What do we want Facebook to do - not obey the law? Implement end-to-end encryption, so they cannot read or hand over private communication in the first place.

hunglee2 4y ago
yes agree with this - but as it currently stands, they have to comply. Furthermore, looking at legislation coming out of the EU, which places interoperability between services as a key element of anti-monopolisation, it may well soon be impossible for any social network to implement end-to-end encryption and stay compliant. Our problem is that we have failed to defend big tech, against big govt having fallen for the 'big tech bad' narrative and now we may well reap what we sow.
- microtonal 4y ago
  Why would interoperability make end-to-end encryption impossible?
  - Daviey 4y ago
    I think the thought is that the encryption would be in the transport layer, and would have to be unwrapped to cross between platforms. Whereas I think this could be effectively implemented in an agreed encryption of the message itself. However, this risks oversimplifying because the next concern would be the metadata. Who is the sender / recipient? How much data is provided about these actors, phone number, email etc? Is this encrypted?
- ls15 4y ago
  > Our problem is that we have failed to defend big tech I don't see big tech as a victim here. Companies like Google and Facebook refused to implement e2ee when they had the opportunity. Their network effects and infinite money pots helped to keep more privacy-respecting options small. We failed to defend privacy against big tech and govt overreach.
  - hunglee2 4y ago
    > We failed to defend privacy against big tech and govt overreach. this optimal scenario was never in our grasp, and even if it were, we missed the opportunity when it mattered. Our task from 2014 onward was to balance big tech vs big govt against each other and make sure neither had too much power over the other. Instead, what we have now is big govt, turning big tech, into another lever of state control
- sofixa 4y ago
  Interoperability doesn't mean cleartext.
- pyrale 4y ago
  > Furthermore, looking at legislation coming out of the EU, which places interoperability between services as a key element of anti-monopolisation, it may well soon be impossible for any social network to implement end-to-end encryption and stay compliant. Public key cryptography has existed for decades now. With regards to your claim, the opposite is true: it's absolutely impossible to implement true and serious end-to-end cryptography and not be compliant with interoperability standards. That being said, in this situation, e2e would probably change nothing, because governments would likely mandate a backdoor for search warrants, and this particular case was not a fishing expedition since there was a probable cause. > Our problem is that we have failed to defend big tech, against big govt having fallen for the 'big tech bad' narrative and now we may well reap what we sow. Big tech doesn't need defending. The truth is that big-tech and big-govt is a much more likely alliance than big-tech and the consumer.
sneak 4y ago
In practice, large messaging providers like Facebook or Apple do not actually have their ostensible 1A rights to publish E2EE communication software. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive/exclusive-apple-dropped-plan-for-encrypting-backups-after-fbi-complained-sources-idUSKBN1ZK1CT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv... They willingly self-censor and preserve these unsafe systems so that they don’t get retaliated against by the state regulatory apparatus. Apple and Facebook aren’t dumb, they know all about E2EE. So does the FBI. They are simply not allowed to close these security holes. No amount of money or commercial success lets you disobey the wishes of the FBI in America.
- hunglee2 4y ago
  this is it - some realpolitik right here.

by ls15 4y ago

> What do we want Facebook to do - not obey the law? Implement end-to-end encryption, so they cannot read or hand over private communication in the first place.

hunglee2 4y ago

yes agree with this - but as it currently stands, they have to comply. Furthermore, looking at legislation coming out of the EU, which places interoperability between services as a key element of anti-monopolisation, it may well soon be impossible for any social network to implement end-to-end encryption and stay compliant. Our problem is that we have failed to defend big tech, against big govt having fallen for the 'big tech bad' narrative and now we may well reap what we sow.

microtonal 4y ago
Why would interoperability make end-to-end encryption impossible?
- Daviey 4y ago
  I think the thought is that the encryption would be in the transport layer, and would have to be unwrapped to cross between platforms. Whereas I think this could be effectively implemented in an agreed encryption of the message itself. However, this risks oversimplifying because the next concern would be the metadata. Who is the sender / recipient? How much data is provided about these actors, phone number, email etc? Is this encrypted?
ls15 4y ago
> Our problem is that we have failed to defend big tech I don't see big tech as a victim here. Companies like Google and Facebook refused to implement e2ee when they had the opportunity. Their network effects and infinite money pots helped to keep more privacy-respecting options small. We failed to defend privacy against big tech and govt overreach.
- hunglee2 4y ago
  > We failed to defend privacy against big tech and govt overreach. this optimal scenario was never in our grasp, and even if it were, we missed the opportunity when it mattered. Our task from 2014 onward was to balance big tech vs big govt against each other and make sure neither had too much power over the other. Instead, what we have now is big govt, turning big tech, into another lever of state control
sofixa 4y ago
Interoperability doesn't mean cleartext.
pyrale 4y ago
> Furthermore, looking at legislation coming out of the EU, which places interoperability between services as a key element of anti-monopolisation, it may well soon be impossible for any social network to implement end-to-end encryption and stay compliant. Public key cryptography has existed for decades now. With regards to your claim, the opposite is true: it's absolutely impossible to implement true and serious end-to-end cryptography and not be compliant with interoperability standards. That being said, in this situation, e2e would probably change nothing, because governments would likely mandate a backdoor for search warrants, and this particular case was not a fishing expedition since there was a probable cause. > Our problem is that we have failed to defend big tech, against big govt having fallen for the 'big tech bad' narrative and now we may well reap what we sow. Big tech doesn't need defending. The truth is that big-tech and big-govt is a much more likely alliance than big-tech and the consumer.

sneak 4y ago

In practice, large messaging providers like Facebook or Apple do not actually have their ostensible 1A rights to publish E2EE communication software. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive/exclusive-apple-dropped-plan-for-encrypting-backups-after-fbi-complained-sources-idUSKBN1ZK1CT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv... They willingly self-censor and preserve these unsafe systems so that they don’t get retaliated against by the state regulatory apparatus. Apple and Facebook aren’t dumb, they know all about E2EE. So does the FBI. They are simply not allowed to close these security holes. No amount of money or commercial success lets you disobey the wishes of the FBI in America.

hunglee2 4y ago
this is it - some realpolitik right here.