3 ms·

> "Surveillance companies should be on notice that illegal spying will not be tolerated." That is kinda funny, although sad at the same time On the flip side,

by nico 2y ago

> "Surveillance companies should be on notice that illegal spying will not be tolerated." That is kinda funny, although sad at the same time On the flip side, I guess that means META allows WhatsApp users being only “legally spied” on

throwaway290 2y ago
"Unauthorized hostility against pioneer detected"
dylan604 2y ago
Isn't that obvious though? Meta wants exclusive spying rights to its users. You spying on users with Meta's products is not allowed. If you want to spy on your users, build an app that's so popular billions of people sign up willingly to allow you to spy on them. Have you no decency?
- talldayo 2y ago
  > Meta wants exclusive spying rights You're allowed to say "The NSA", we're all adults here. No need to speak in euphemisms.
trogdor 2y ago
Every social media company allows legal spying. Warrants and wiretap orders are issued every day in the United States.
- sangnoir 2y ago
  With end-user-device-controlled e2ee, the only information available to law enforcement is metadata. With a warrant, they could seize your device (or the backups, if unencrypted)
  - dsp 2y ago
    Unfortunately, I don’t think end-to-end encryption guarantees much when it comes to legal intercept in proprietary messaging apps. The intercept functionality could be done in the client and capture data, not just metadata.
    - sangnoir 2y ago
      Why hasn't any evidence of such client-side interception ever been surfaced? Reversing apps and software has been done since forever, and has been used to discover things the app-makers don't want made public - such as unannounced new products, but this happens perennialy with Apple & OS updates, and upcoming features in apps that are behind flags.
      - tredre3 2y ago
        > Why hasn't any evidence of such client-side interception ever been surfaced? In such scenario only the target of the wiretap would receive the modified client application. Both google and apple allow pushing updates to small subset of users. It's not unthinkable that they also have the (internal) ability to push a specific update to a specific user. But I guess now you'll move the goalpost to ask "Why hasn't any Googler come forward and admitted it's happening?" That is a fair question, but I think most people would see this legal spying as no big deal and perhaps even a good thing.
        sangnoir 2y ago
        > It's not unthinkable that they also have the (internal) ability to push a specific update to a specific user. So the lack of evidence is itself evidence of another layer of nefarious activity? Are Apple in on it too (since they approve updates control the app store roll-outs)? I have no stomach for debates over unfalsifiable scenarios - your position is clearly set in stone.

by nico 2y ago

throwaway290 2y ago

"Unauthorized hostility against pioneer detected"

dylan604 2y ago

Isn't that obvious though? Meta wants exclusive spying rights to its users. You spying on users with Meta's products is not allowed. If you want to spy on your users, build an app that's so popular billions of people sign up willingly to allow you to spy on them. Have you no decency?

talldayo 2y ago
> Meta wants exclusive spying rights You're allowed to say "The NSA", we're all adults here. No need to speak in euphemisms.

trogdor 2y ago

Every social media company allows legal spying. Warrants and wiretap orders are issued every day in the United States.

sangnoir 2y ago
With end-user-device-controlled e2ee, the only information available to law enforcement is metadata. With a warrant, they could seize your device (or the backups, if unencrypted)
- dsp 2y ago
  Unfortunately, I don’t think end-to-end encryption guarantees much when it comes to legal intercept in proprietary messaging apps. The intercept functionality could be done in the client and capture data, not just metadata.
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    Why hasn't any evidence of such client-side interception ever been surfaced? Reversing apps and software has been done since forever, and has been used to discover things the app-makers don't want made public - such as unannounced new products, but this happens perennialy with Apple & OS updates, and upcoming features in apps that are behind flags.
    - tredre3 2y ago
      > Why hasn't any evidence of such client-side interception ever been surfaced? In such scenario only the target of the wiretap would receive the modified client application. Both google and apple allow pushing updates to small subset of users. It's not unthinkable that they also have the (internal) ability to push a specific update to a specific user. But I guess now you'll move the goalpost to ask "Why hasn't any Googler come forward and admitted it's happening?" That is a fair question, but I think most people would see this legal spying as no big deal and perhaps even a good thing.
      - sangnoir 2y ago
        > It's not unthinkable that they also have the (internal) ability to push a specific update to a specific user. So the lack of evidence is itself evidence of another layer of nefarious activity? Are Apple in on it too (since they approve updates control the app store roll-outs)? I have no stomach for debates over unfalsifiable scenarios - your position is clearly set in stone.