4 ms·

I also find the word "Slack" in that interesting. I assume they mean "employees of Slack", but the word "Slack" obviously means all the company's assets and age

by 015a 2y ago

I also find the word "Slack" in that interesting. I assume they mean "employees of Slack", but the word "Slack" obviously means all the company's assets and agents, systems, computers, servers, AI models, etc. I would find even a statement from Signal like "we can't access our users content" to be tenuous and overly-optimistic. Like, when I heard the word "can't" my brain goes to: there is nothing anyone in the company could do, within the bounds of the law, to do this. Employees at Slack could turn off the technical measures preventing this from occurring. Employees at Signal could push an app update which side-channels all messages through to a different server, unencrypted. Better phrasing is "Employees of Slack will not access the underlying content".

throwaway22032 2y ago
Interestingly I'd probably go the other way. If it's verifiably E2EE then I consider "we can't access this" to be a fairly powerful statement. Sure, the source could change, but if you have a reasonable distribution mechanism (e.g. all users get the same code, verifiably reproducible) then that's about as good as you can get. Privacy policies that state "we won't do XYZ" have literally zero value to me to the extent that I don't even look at them. If I give you some data, it's already leaked in my mind, it's just a matter of time.
gbalduzzi 2y ago
> I would find even a statement from Signal like "we can't access our users content" to be tenuous and overly-optimistic. I don't really agree with this statement. Signal literally can't read user data right now. The statement is true, why can't they use it? If they can't use it, nobody can. there are no services that can't publish an update reversing any security measure available. Also doing that would be illegal, because it would render the statement "we can't access our users content" false. In Slack case, it is totally different. Data is accessible by Slack systems, the statement "we can't access our users content" is already false. Probably what they mean is something along the lines of: "The data can't be accessed by our systems, but we have measures in place that block the access to most of our employees"

by 015a 2y ago

throwaway22032 2y ago

Interestingly I'd probably go the other way. If it's verifiably E2EE then I consider "we can't access this" to be a fairly powerful statement. Sure, the source could change, but if you have a reasonable distribution mechanism (e.g. all users get the same code, verifiably reproducible) then that's about as good as you can get. Privacy policies that state "we won't do XYZ" have literally zero value to me to the extent that I don't even look at them. If I give you some data, it's already leaked in my mind, it's just a matter of time.

gbalduzzi 2y ago

> I would find even a statement from Signal like "we can't access our users content" to be tenuous and overly-optimistic. I don't really agree with this statement. Signal literally can't read user data right now. The statement is true, why can't they use it? If they can't use it, nobody can. there are no services that can't publish an update reversing any security measure available. Also doing that would be illegal, because it would render the statement "we can't access our users content" false. In Slack case, it is totally different. Data is accessible by Slack systems, the statement "we can't access our users content" is already false. Probably what they mean is something along the lines of: "The data can't be accessed by our systems, but we have measures in place that block the access to most of our employees"