3 ms·

Elon's 7 months into a 17 year old company we finally have encryption. But that's not fast enough because it's not perfect yet? Do we think there's more dead

Elon's 7 months into a 17 year old company we finally have encryption. But that's not fast enough because it's not perfect yet? Do we think there's more dead wood Imposters that needs to be fired at Twitter to get progress even faster? > Then they'd have the corresponding private key, and would be able to obtain the message encryption key. This is technically wrong or badly worded. Is it just saying since you run their software on your device they could steal your private key? Same as WhatsApp or Signal? Not sure I get this point. If app developer turns evil and no one notices you are always stuffed.

mjg59 3y ago
> This is technically wrong or badly worded Could you explain why? > Is it just saying since you run their software on your device they could steal your private key? No. It's saying that because there's no indication of which keys the conversation key is being sent to, if Twitter added an additional public key to a users's set of registered keys, anyone who initiated a DM with that user would have no way of knowing that they were sending a copy of the conversation key to Twitter. This doesn't involve any modification of the client code.
- aaron695 3y ago
  [dead]
protocolture 3y ago
Theres no situation where Twitter develops and deploys E2E encryption. Musk has already proven he is more likely to snitch on users for the government than the previous admin. From there you can only extrapolate that this will be delivered with a government backdoor on the app side. If Musk actually manages to lure in whistleblowers to his platform with these antics those whistleblowers will have their asses hanging in the wind waiting for a government assistance request. Hopefully they arent as stupid as to trust musk.
- mjg59 3y ago
  It's actually plausible to audit the app for backdoor mechanisms, even without access to the source code. Right now there's no indication of one being present. I'm very very much not a fan of Elon, but in terms of the disparity between what's promised vs what's implemented right now everything points towards incompetence rather than malice.

mjg59 3y ago

> This is technically wrong or badly worded Could you explain why? > Is it just saying since you run their software on your device they could steal your private key? No. It's saying that because there's no indication of which keys the conversation key is being sent to, if Twitter added an additional public key to a users's set of registered keys, anyone who initiated a DM with that user would have no way of knowing that they were sending a copy of the conversation key to Twitter. This doesn't involve any modification of the client code.

aaron695 3y ago
[dead]

protocolture 3y ago

Theres no situation where Twitter develops and deploys E2E encryption. Musk has already proven he is more likely to snitch on users for the government than the previous admin. From there you can only extrapolate that this will be delivered with a government backdoor on the app side. If Musk actually manages to lure in whistleblowers to his platform with these antics those whistleblowers will have their asses hanging in the wind waiting for a government assistance request. Hopefully they arent as stupid as to trust musk.

mjg59 3y ago
It's actually plausible to audit the app for backdoor mechanisms, even without access to the source code. Right now there's no indication of one being present. I'm very very much not a fan of Elon, but in terms of the disparity between what's promised vs what's implemented right now everything points towards incompetence rather than malice.