3 ms·

I'm not against breaking e2ee when the right protections are in place. 1, Court signed order 2, Public Disclosure during prosecution or within X time of the co

I'm not against breaking e2ee when the right protections are in place. 1, Court signed order 2, Public Disclosure during prosecution or within X time of the court order being signed (including when no wrongdoing found) 3, Some sort of test to ensure it's not misused (imminent threat to life, serious crime like murder/child kidnap or something) The idea that a judge can order a cavity search to find information leading to the location of a suspected murdered/dying child but not to read a message between the suspected murders phones seems ludicrous. It appears at least in some of the US/UK, a judge can order you to give information including your phone password and if you don't, you become a criminal for that. I'm just suggesting the question should be around where do we draw the line on privacy vs protection and what safeguards do we put in place. I.E on a scale of speeding ticket to terrorist attack.

kstrauser 3y ago
E2EE is a true/false label. Either it is, or it ain’t. It is not mathematically possible to selectively break E2EE. If it’s broken, it’s not E2EE.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hot_gril 3y ago
  There are stronger and weaker forms of it, though. Apple holds the keys to the identity (public key) exchange in iMessage. You're still trusting Apple not to mitm your conversations, but at least they wouldn't be able to do this retroactively. Other E2EE messaging apps at least have a way to verify each others' pubkeys, but it's not required and very few people do it.
  - kstrauser 3y ago
    Apple previously announced their "iMessage Contact Key Verification" (https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/12/apple-advances-user-security-with-powerful-new-data-protections/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/12/apple-advances-user-s...). Rumors are that it's coming in iOS 16.6 which may drop any time now.
    - hot_gril 3y ago
      That's cool. The article mentions a more common attack I forgot about, someone managing to add a new device to someone's account and get messages on there.
- InsomniacL 3y ago
  The device manufacture could silently push an update to reveal the keys? but the semantics of a label aren't important. I think the important question is should an authority be able to read messages and if so, under what circumstances? What if it's to prevent a major terrorist attack, should you have an absolute right to privacy so much so that, a means that would never be used against you can't exist even if it means the loss of a lot of life? As I say, I think the question should be around where we draw the line and what protections we put in place to ensure it's not crossed.

kstrauser 3y ago

E2EE is a true/false label. Either it is, or it ain’t. It is not mathematically possible to selectively break E2EE. If it’s broken, it’s not E2EE.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hot_gril 3y ago
There are stronger and weaker forms of it, though. Apple holds the keys to the identity (public key) exchange in iMessage. You're still trusting Apple not to mitm your conversations, but at least they wouldn't be able to do this retroactively. Other E2EE messaging apps at least have a way to verify each others' pubkeys, but it's not required and very few people do it.
- kstrauser 3y ago
  Apple previously announced their "iMessage Contact Key Verification" (https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/12/apple-advances-user-security-with-powerful-new-data-protections/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/12/apple-advances-user-s...). Rumors are that it's coming in iOS 16.6 which may drop any time now.
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    That's cool. The article mentions a more common attack I forgot about, someone managing to add a new device to someone's account and get messages on there.
InsomniacL 3y ago
The device manufacture could silently push an update to reveal the keys? but the semantics of a label aren't important. I think the important question is should an authority be able to read messages and if so, under what circumstances? What if it's to prevent a major terrorist attack, should you have an absolute right to privacy so much so that, a means that would never be used against you can't exist even if it means the loss of a lot of life? As I say, I think the question should be around where we draw the line and what protections we put in place to ensure it's not crossed.