7 ms·

The Government Wants A Backdoor Into Your Online Communications

129 points by zoowar 13y ago

ISL 13y ago
Backdooring major services may lead to the mass adoption of encrypted systems. Not immediately, of course, but after the leaks start. Who'd use a backdoored Google Drive for proprietary information when they could use SpiderOak? Can't stop the signal, Mal.
- betterunix 13y ago
  The FBI is asking for backdoors on the client side of secure communication systems. Did you think they forgot about the 90s? The difference today is this: lots of people are buying restricted computers (tablets, smartphones, even some laptops), and it would not be hard for the government to push backdoors into software distributed via the "app store model." This time there is actually a chance of the Justice Department getting their way.
  - DenisM 13y ago
    Android is not restricted, not yet at least. But I see your point, and it's rather alarming.
    - venomsnake 13y ago
      Unless you create your own raspberry pi to used as a (sanctioned from you) mitm proxy that encrypts the paintext on any communication you send to the online services. So basically google get already encrypted mail that only the receiver can decrypt. So it will go like this - I write hi on the IM client, the Pi intercepts the protocol unpacks the hi encrypts it with the private key, sends some base64 to the server who then translates it to the receiver that has similar device installed which does the decryption. It is not perfect but it can be done. And I am sure Mr Schneier can think of something much better in its sleep.
- wmf 13y ago
  Every Web 2.0 service has been "backdoored" (i.e. storing data in the clear on the servers) all along and very few people have complained. Perhaps inventing a scary term for an existing practice will catalyze some kind of change, but I doubt it.
  - schoen 13y ago
    "Backdoor" is the term that we used in the 1990s in connection with proposed anti-encryption measures, and particularly systems like Clipper where encryption was present but had been modified to allow government access ("key escrow" and "key recovery"). In this prototypical case, a potentially otherwise secure design was modified specifically to allow the government to break it. There are still engineering efforts today to do analogous things, including work at ETSI with regard to GSM voice encryption. As a coauthor of the original post, I think the term is still reasonable and useful. I agree that the applicability of "backdoor" to the cases you mention is less clear, and sometimes absent. Often, the main reasons that users don't get to control their own crypto keys may have to do with a service provider's business model and engineering decisions. If facilitating surveillance wasn't one of the main design goals, I can see where "backdoor" feels much less appropriate. (I think I'd argue that it's still an appropriate term if the architectural decisions about encryption are directly influenced by pressure from the government. Legislation to ban certain designs for communications systems should put us squarely in that category.) I'd also like to find ways to encourage users to value end-to-end encryption, but I don't think that was meant to be the point of using the term "backdoor". We are actually talking about legislation here, supposedly meant to change how services are engineered, likely including services and software that are already in use.
pron 13y ago
I actually feel much worse with the fact that large corporations with no oversight, who knows what kind of security, no counter-intelligence and little if any background checks on employees, have a front-door entrance to my data. Think about this: how hard would it be for a crime organization to put some Google employees on their payroll and use them to get personal information on just about anyone. How hard would it be for them to threaten a Google employee to provide them with information? So now the government wants in? Join the party. I'd actually be happy, though, if the government put in place some/more regulation on companies that collect so much personal data.
- clubhi 13y ago
  It is difficult to get traceable user information at companies like Google. In my experience startups do little or nothing to protect this data. They also would be the ones likely to put a vulnerable backdoor in a product just to meet some government mandate.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  So you'd be happy that the government establishes their own rules by themselves about when they spy on your data? Rules shouldn't be made BY the government in the first place, since they have a vested interest in watching over everything we do.
yajoe 13y ago
For those who are skeptical about these conspiracy theories, I've tried to explain why large vendors accede in a previous post and got great skeptical questions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5706695 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5706695 tl;dr -- Most large public services you use (Skype, Exchange, likely Gmail, etc) have backdoors. Large vendors believe they have to respond to subpoenas or face public obstruction or co-conspiracy charges. As a result, they place these backdoors to avoid the PR or believe they are required to play by the US govt's rules. They may not be realtime backdoors, and they may require a bunch of processing, but it is possible to read most messages sent through large, popular systems (both voice and text like email, sms, chat). I think everyone is waiting for a major court ruling or congressional bill to clarify what's what. snippet of previous post to explain the vendor's mentality: > The govt comes by with a subpoena (secret, classified, or public) and requires Microsoft or the customer company to produce communication records that exist in a form that may be used as evidence. Failure to do so is best contempt of court and worst obstruction of justice. No 5th amendment privilege for other people's crimes [and prior to last year's ruling, it was assumed that passwords (or private keys) could be compelled for any reason in the US, and systems were built with that assumption]. So everyone who chooses to store or process messages makes it so the encryption is reversible and they can honor court requests. Nothing is private as a result. > There is not yet a way to build a messaging service that has both features [content-aware features like URL detection, spell-checkers, web browsing for dumb clients, targeted ads to fund free services, etc] AND [pure] privacy [in the US].
- DenisM 13y ago
  > The govt comes by with a subpoena (secret, classified, or public) and requires Microsoft or the customer company to produce communication records that exist in a form that may be used as evidence. Failure to do so is best contempt of court and worst obstruction of justice. This assertion seems dubious - IIRC the law (court order or subpoena or whatever) cannot compel a company to disclose information which they do not have in their possession. What are your sources (and/or credentials) supporting this opinion? [EDIT] While we're at it, could you please also substantiate the following claim of yours? It doesn't look right either - if this were so, then emails would be retained indefinitely whereas we know for a fact that they are routinely and aggressively purged, except when explicitly held for discovery. >There is a prevailing theory that companies are responsible for employee actions, and failing to log is seen as unacceptable.
rhizome 13y ago
Boiling frog. As long as digital freedoms remain unlegislated, government will circumscribe ever-shrinking boundaries with and without the help of industry. It will continue forever until and unless the freedoms are enshrined into law.
brownbat 13y ago
Encryption is hard to implement right, but by its nature, it can be implemented at the ends, outside of the transmission network. Ironically, one of the groups working hardest to enable and promote end-to-end secure communications technology is NIST, ie, "the Government."
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  >Ironically, one of the groups working hardest to enable and promote end-to-end secure communications technology is NIST, ie, "the Government." I don't see the irony. It's just the nature of government. The government isn't one person, it's competing factions with conflicting interests. The ideal in cryptography is to minimize the attack surface and eliminate vulnerabilities. If NIST adopts poor cryptographic standards which fail in that regard then they lose face and risk having their dominion over those matters reduced. Their incentives therefore align well with those of the general public. On the other hand, the FBI's job is to put humans in prison. Security vulnerabilities are their friend because they're often legally allowed to exploit them. And as a bonus, the bad guys can exploit them too -- more bad guys (real or imaginary) means larger law enforcement and defense budgets.
  - brownbat 13y ago
    Agreed, this was what I was pointing out. Government is a complex and multifaceted enterprise, but people often treat it as a monolith, especially in conspiracy theories. There's a great line in "What Chinese Hackers Get Wrong About Washington:" This is the most pervasive of of all Washington legends: that politicians in Washington are ceaselessly, ruthlessly, effectively scheming. That everything that happens fits into somebody’s plan. It doesn’t. Maybe it started out with a scheme, but soon enough everyone is, at best, reacting, and at worst, failing to react, and always, always they’re doing it with less information than they need. That’s been a key lesson I’ve learned working as a reporter and political observer in Washington: No one can carry out complicated plans. All parties and groups are fractious and bumbling. But everyone always thinks everyone else is efficiently and ruthlessly implementing long-term schemes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/25/what-chinas-hackers-get-wrong-about-washington/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/25/w...
darxius 13y ago
You know, part of me wants this to happen. It will force a lot of high profile technology companies (and spawn new ones) to adopt end to end asymmetric encryption. Of course, this is idealistic, but there could be some good to be gleaned from it.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- wmf 13y ago
  Huh, I had the opposite interpretation. If you have end-to-end crypto then you'd have to add a backdoor, but if you have weak or no crypto then your system will need little or no change.
drawkbox 13y ago
I agree crypto on personal and business communication by default would be great, but it won't do much to truly protect the data from national security. If using NSA approved crypto they'd love that such as RSA. It's newer algorithms like PGP in the 90's that actually protect (or did) or extreme military grade encryption. Trapdoors and algos that can be broken by the NSA are more preferred and don't get the Zimmerman treatment because of that. If I were the NSA I'd do the same thing, it is their job. There really is no way to fully encrypt that isn't undoable by the NSA. As long as it is only the NSA and not some other competitor spying on business ideas and private communications. Trapdoors for national security are typically in the software or a known flaw that makes it easier to decrypt and recover this information, obtain keys or enter the system to trigger and get the needed information to reverse. There are ways to trigger these modes within the software, software to be used by the NSA has to be approved by them. There is a reason you are subject to all sorts of scrutiny if you don't use approved algos/software wherever you do encryption/decryption (even when you upload a new app you are asked this and can cause problems if you aren't using the system crypto libraries). http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2188 http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2188 http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2240 http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2240 If you want to test this, simply make your own crypto lib and send some comms to a bad place in current geopolitics (I don't recommend it). Soon you will get a visit from the FBI and you may get the Phil Zimmerman treatment. Again, can't fault them, it is their job, but understand nothing is truly secure from national security. Yes it might be impossible for other businesses to read it or individuals but not the organization that employs the greatest cryptographers of all time.
- ds9 13y ago
  Where do you get the claim that NSA can reverse cryto that is generally believed unbreakable? Maybe you meant to refer to DSA, which is deprecated, in this line: "If using NSA approved crypto they'd love that such as RSA". RSA is used today for SSH keys. How about links supporting the claims about NSA? I don't doubt they're trying to break any encryption as far as possible, but the statement that they definitely can break anything needs some evidence.
  - 13y ago
gasull 13y ago
This is why we should use Bitmessage. https://bitmessage.org/ https://bitmessage.org/ PPA for Ubuntu or Debian: https://launchpad.net/~fuzzgun/+archive/pybitmessage https://launchpad.net/~fuzzgun/+archive/pybitmessage
Fuxy 13y ago
Could some hackers please hack the police wiretapping systems already in place the government doesn't seem to understand the threat to our security and anonymity this poses without a demonstration. No system is completely secure including the wiretapping system which introduces one point of failure not to mention incredible power for a not so benevolent dictator. If Hitler were alive today we would all be screwed by now so how long do you reckon it would take for another man like him to rise to power? I would give it maybe 5 generation and I'm being generous here. Given how China is behaving right now drunk on power i don't think we're going to have to wait that long.
antihero 13y ago
Do there yet exist tutorials that the average Joe can follow for PGP/GnuPG?
- 6d0debc071 13y ago
  That they can follow? Yes. I think Gwern's got a fairly simple rundown on her silk road article on her website. That they can make practical use of for day to day? Not really, no.
zokier 13y ago
Open-source end-to-end encrypted communications. Using it is not rocket science. You should not trust legislation and goodwill of service providers for your privacy. Take the power to your own hands.
- X4 13y ago
  Can you share all the effective and easy to use tools you know here please?
  - zokier 13y ago
    GPG is the number one tool of course. For IM-like functionality OTR (over XMPP) seems to be the preferred protocol, you could use eg Jitsi as the client. For (mobile) voice there is RedPhone and SilentCircle. Both are fairly new so I wouldn't be 100% confident on them but they are made by experts and lay on very strong foundations.
X4 13y ago
Given that the Government has already back-doors in nearly all of your communication. How would they utilize it? What would their benefit be? That's nothing but Psychopathic behavior!! Someone wanting to know everything about you, just because there could something be that could harm you, or there could something be that you could use to profit from. That's sick! You put 99,9% of the population into quarantine, because 0,01% is infected, thus harming all. Then there is this obsession of some even more psychopathic citizens that act as a voluntary traitor, just to get attention. Remember the volunteers who helped to reveal the identities of demonstrators in the UK. When I see an IT-Expert, I won't ask him to fix my computer just because he can, but people do. They don't care about the time and effort someone has to offer for you for free. They require it, because they believe they can require it. IT-Experts usually don't have high self-esteem which allows many people to put knives into the backs of those IT-Experts. That's the same egoism that the Government has, it believes to stand above the human rights. Well it's sad, but in the US you've given up on privacy more or less, because everybody thinks about his own profit and not being willing to share a dime of your profit, even in theory, allows politicians to reform the law into something stinky. But politicians profit from doing that, because the suggest stinky compromises. Someone has to break this cycle. If I said that in an uneducated channel, people would say: "stupid communist" or something. But in reality I believe that people should just be friendlier to each other. Why is that so hard to understand. :( This makes me truly sad. I live in a world where I have to use simpler and simples words, just because my surrounding doesn't understand common words anymore. The overall IQ is getting lower and lower, so low that I cannot use metaphors, sarcasm, irony and even folk wisdom anymore, because people are completely unaware of them. Knowing that these people would accept this law, because they don't care, don't read, don't think on their own is sad. People don't start thinking on their own, they agree on others or more popular people say, as if this was fully acceptable and logical. I am so happy when I hear about services like http://udacity.com http://udacity.com because I hope the next generation won't dumb down like this generation. Way too many children fail at school, way too many pupil don't get higher education. The gap is becoming greater, your heritage becomes your identity. Orwell laid it out dangerously obvious in his novel. Most of it got real. Let's hope that the day "Lies" become "Truth" never arrives. We blame China, while we export the technology for it. We blame China while we implement that censoring infrastructure into our own Governments. Hypocrites.

129 points by zoowar 13y ago

ISL 13y ago

Backdooring major services may lead to the mass adoption of encrypted systems. Not immediately, of course, but after the leaks start. Who'd use a backdoored Google Drive for proprietary information when they could use SpiderOak? Can't stop the signal, Mal.

betterunix 13y ago
The FBI is asking for backdoors on the client side of secure communication systems. Did you think they forgot about the 90s? The difference today is this: lots of people are buying restricted computers (tablets, smartphones, even some laptops), and it would not be hard for the government to push backdoors into software distributed via the "app store model." This time there is actually a chance of the Justice Department getting their way.
- DenisM 13y ago
  Android is not restricted, not yet at least. But I see your point, and it's rather alarming.
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    Unless you create your own raspberry pi to used as a (sanctioned from you) mitm proxy that encrypts the paintext on any communication you send to the online services. So basically google get already encrypted mail that only the receiver can decrypt. So it will go like this - I write hi on the IM client, the Pi intercepts the protocol unpacks the hi encrypts it with the private key, sends some base64 to the server who then translates it to the receiver that has similar device installed which does the decryption. It is not perfect but it can be done. And I am sure Mr Schneier can think of something much better in its sleep.
wmf 13y ago
Every Web 2.0 service has been "backdoored" (i.e. storing data in the clear on the servers) all along and very few people have complained. Perhaps inventing a scary term for an existing practice will catalyze some kind of change, but I doubt it.
- schoen 13y ago
  "Backdoor" is the term that we used in the 1990s in connection with proposed anti-encryption measures, and particularly systems like Clipper where encryption was present but had been modified to allow government access ("key escrow" and "key recovery"). In this prototypical case, a potentially otherwise secure design was modified specifically to allow the government to break it. There are still engineering efforts today to do analogous things, including work at ETSI with regard to GSM voice encryption. As a coauthor of the original post, I think the term is still reasonable and useful. I agree that the applicability of "backdoor" to the cases you mention is less clear, and sometimes absent. Often, the main reasons that users don't get to control their own crypto keys may have to do with a service provider's business model and engineering decisions. If facilitating surveillance wasn't one of the main design goals, I can see where "backdoor" feels much less appropriate. (I think I'd argue that it's still an appropriate term if the architectural decisions about encryption are directly influenced by pressure from the government. Legislation to ban certain designs for communications systems should put us squarely in that category.) I'd also like to find ways to encourage users to value end-to-end encryption, but I don't think that was meant to be the point of using the term "backdoor". We are actually talking about legislation here, supposedly meant to change how services are engineered, likely including services and software that are already in use.

pron 13y ago

I actually feel much worse with the fact that large corporations with no oversight, who knows what kind of security, no counter-intelligence and little if any background checks on employees, have a front-door entrance to my data. Think about this: how hard would it be for a crime organization to put some Google employees on their payroll and use them to get personal information on just about anyone. How hard would it be for them to threaten a Google employee to provide them with information? So now the government wants in? Join the party. I'd actually be happy, though, if the government put in place some/more regulation on companies that collect so much personal data.

clubhi 13y ago
It is difficult to get traceable user information at companies like Google. In my experience startups do little or nothing to protect this data. They also would be the ones likely to put a vulnerable backdoor in a product just to meet some government mandate.
ekianjo 13y ago
So you'd be happy that the government establishes their own rules by themselves about when they spy on your data? Rules shouldn't be made BY the government in the first place, since they have a vested interest in watching over everything we do.

yajoe 13y ago

For those who are skeptical about these conspiracy theories, I've tried to explain why large vendors accede in a previous post and got great skeptical questions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5706695 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5706695 tl;dr -- Most large public services you use (Skype, Exchange, likely Gmail, etc) have backdoors. Large vendors believe they have to respond to subpoenas or face public obstruction or co-conspiracy charges. As a result, they place these backdoors to avoid the PR or believe they are required to play by the US govt's rules. They may not be realtime backdoors, and they may require a bunch of processing, but it is possible to read most messages sent through large, popular systems (both voice and text like email, sms, chat). I think everyone is waiting for a major court ruling or congressional bill to clarify what's what. snippet of previous post to explain the vendor's mentality: > The govt comes by with a subpoena (secret, classified, or public) and requires Microsoft or the customer company to produce communication records that exist in a form that may be used as evidence. Failure to do so is best contempt of court and worst obstruction of justice. No 5th amendment privilege for other people's crimes [and prior to last year's ruling, it was assumed that passwords (or private keys) could be compelled for any reason in the US, and systems were built with that assumption]. So everyone who chooses to store or process messages makes it so the encryption is reversible and they can honor court requests. Nothing is private as a result. > There is not yet a way to build a messaging service that has both features [content-aware features like URL detection, spell-checkers, web browsing for dumb clients, targeted ads to fund free services, etc] AND [pure] privacy [in the US].

DenisM 13y ago
> The govt comes by with a subpoena (secret, classified, or public) and requires Microsoft or the customer company to produce communication records that exist in a form that may be used as evidence. Failure to do so is best contempt of court and worst obstruction of justice. This assertion seems dubious - IIRC the law (court order or subpoena or whatever) cannot compel a company to disclose information which they do not have in their possession. What are your sources (and/or credentials) supporting this opinion? [EDIT] While we're at it, could you please also substantiate the following claim of yours? It doesn't look right either - if this were so, then emails would be retained indefinitely whereas we know for a fact that they are routinely and aggressively purged, except when explicitly held for discovery. >There is a prevailing theory that companies are responsible for employee actions, and failing to log is seen as unacceptable.

rhizome 13y ago

Boiling frog. As long as digital freedoms remain unlegislated, government will circumscribe ever-shrinking boundaries with and without the help of industry. It will continue forever until and unless the freedoms are enshrined into law.

brownbat 13y ago

Encryption is hard to implement right, but by its nature, it can be implemented at the ends, outside of the transmission network. Ironically, one of the groups working hardest to enable and promote end-to-end secure communications technology is NIST, ie, "the Government."

AnthonyMouse 13y ago
>Ironically, one of the groups working hardest to enable and promote end-to-end secure communications technology is NIST, ie, "the Government." I don't see the irony. It's just the nature of government. The government isn't one person, it's competing factions with conflicting interests. The ideal in cryptography is to minimize the attack surface and eliminate vulnerabilities. If NIST adopts poor cryptographic standards which fail in that regard then they lose face and risk having their dominion over those matters reduced. Their incentives therefore align well with those of the general public. On the other hand, the FBI's job is to put humans in prison. Security vulnerabilities are their friend because they're often legally allowed to exploit them. And as a bonus, the bad guys can exploit them too -- more bad guys (real or imaginary) means larger law enforcement and defense budgets.
- brownbat 13y ago
  Agreed, this was what I was pointing out. Government is a complex and multifaceted enterprise, but people often treat it as a monolith, especially in conspiracy theories. There's a great line in "What Chinese Hackers Get Wrong About Washington:" This is the most pervasive of of all Washington legends: that politicians in Washington are ceaselessly, ruthlessly, effectively scheming. That everything that happens fits into somebody’s plan. It doesn’t. Maybe it started out with a scheme, but soon enough everyone is, at best, reacting, and at worst, failing to react, and always, always they’re doing it with less information than they need. That’s been a key lesson I’ve learned working as a reporter and political observer in Washington: No one can carry out complicated plans. All parties and groups are fractious and bumbling. But everyone always thinks everyone else is efficiently and ruthlessly implementing long-term schemes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/25/what-chinas-hackers-get-wrong-about-washington/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/25/w...

darxius 13y ago

You know, part of me wants this to happen. It will force a lot of high profile technology companies (and spawn new ones) to adopt end to end asymmetric encryption. Of course, this is idealistic, but there could be some good to be gleaned from it.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
wmf 13y ago
Huh, I had the opposite interpretation. If you have end-to-end crypto then you'd have to add a backdoor, but if you have weak or no crypto then your system will need little or no change.

drawkbox 13y ago

I agree crypto on personal and business communication by default would be great, but it won't do much to truly protect the data from national security. If using NSA approved crypto they'd love that such as RSA. It's newer algorithms like PGP in the 90's that actually protect (or did) or extreme military grade encryption. Trapdoors and algos that can be broken by the NSA are more preferred and don't get the Zimmerman treatment because of that. If I were the NSA I'd do the same thing, it is their job. There really is no way to fully encrypt that isn't undoable by the NSA. As long as it is only the NSA and not some other competitor spying on business ideas and private communications. Trapdoors for national security are typically in the software or a known flaw that makes it easier to decrypt and recover this information, obtain keys or enter the system to trigger and get the needed information to reverse. There are ways to trigger these modes within the software, software to be used by the NSA has to be approved by them. There is a reason you are subject to all sorts of scrutiny if you don't use approved algos/software wherever you do encryption/decryption (even when you upload a new app you are asked this and can cause problems if you aren't using the system crypto libraries). http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2188 http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2188 http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2240 http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2240 If you want to test this, simply make your own crypto lib and send some comms to a bad place in current geopolitics (I don't recommend it). Soon you will get a visit from the FBI and you may get the Phil Zimmerman treatment. Again, can't fault them, it is their job, but understand nothing is truly secure from national security. Yes it might be impossible for other businesses to read it or individuals but not the organization that employs the greatest cryptographers of all time.

ds9 13y ago
Where do you get the claim that NSA can reverse cryto that is generally believed unbreakable? Maybe you meant to refer to DSA, which is deprecated, in this line: "If using NSA approved crypto they'd love that such as RSA". RSA is used today for SSH keys. How about links supporting the claims about NSA? I don't doubt they're trying to break any encryption as far as possible, but the statement that they definitely can break anything needs some evidence.
- 13y ago

gasull 13y ago

This is why we should use Bitmessage. https://bitmessage.org/ https://bitmessage.org/ PPA for Ubuntu or Debian: https://launchpad.net/~fuzzgun/+archive/pybitmessage https://launchpad.net/~fuzzgun/+archive/pybitmessage

Fuxy 13y ago

Could some hackers please hack the police wiretapping systems already in place the government doesn't seem to understand the threat to our security and anonymity this poses without a demonstration. No system is completely secure including the wiretapping system which introduces one point of failure not to mention incredible power for a not so benevolent dictator. If Hitler were alive today we would all be screwed by now so how long do you reckon it would take for another man like him to rise to power? I would give it maybe 5 generation and I'm being generous here. Given how China is behaving right now drunk on power i don't think we're going to have to wait that long.

antihero 13y ago

Do there yet exist tutorials that the average Joe can follow for PGP/GnuPG?

6d0debc071 13y ago
That they can follow? Yes. I think Gwern's got a fairly simple rundown on her silk road article on her website. That they can make practical use of for day to day? Not really, no.

zokier 13y ago

Open-source end-to-end encrypted communications. Using it is not rocket science. You should not trust legislation and goodwill of service providers for your privacy. Take the power to your own hands.

X4 13y ago
Can you share all the effective and easy to use tools you know here please?
- zokier 13y ago
  GPG is the number one tool of course. For IM-like functionality OTR (over XMPP) seems to be the preferred protocol, you could use eg Jitsi as the client. For (mobile) voice there is RedPhone and SilentCircle. Both are fairly new so I wouldn't be 100% confident on them but they are made by experts and lay on very strong foundations.

X4 13y ago

Given that the Government has already back-doors in nearly all of your communication. How would they utilize it? What would their benefit be? That's nothing but Psychopathic behavior!! Someone wanting to know everything about you, just because there could something be that could harm you, or there could something be that you could use to profit from. That's sick! You put 99,9% of the population into quarantine, because 0,01% is infected, thus harming all. Then there is this obsession of some even more psychopathic citizens that act as a voluntary traitor, just to get attention. Remember the volunteers who helped to reveal the identities of demonstrators in the UK. When I see an IT-Expert, I won't ask him to fix my computer just because he can, but people do. They don't care about the time and effort someone has to offer for you for free. They require it, because they believe they can require it. IT-Experts usually don't have high self-esteem which allows many people to put knives into the backs of those IT-Experts. That's the same egoism that the Government has, it believes to stand above the human rights. Well it's sad, but in the US you've given up on privacy more or less, because everybody thinks about his own profit and not being willing to share a dime of your profit, even in theory, allows politicians to reform the law into something stinky. But politicians profit from doing that, because the suggest stinky compromises. Someone has to break this cycle. If I said that in an uneducated channel, people would say: "stupid communist" or something. But in reality I believe that people should just be friendlier to each other. Why is that so hard to understand. :( This makes me truly sad. I live in a world where I have to use simpler and simples words, just because my surrounding doesn't understand common words anymore. The overall IQ is getting lower and lower, so low that I cannot use metaphors, sarcasm, irony and even folk wisdom anymore, because people are completely unaware of them. Knowing that these people would accept this law, because they don't care, don't read, don't think on their own is sad. People don't start thinking on their own, they agree on others or more popular people say, as if this was fully acceptable and logical. I am so happy when I hear about services like http://udacity.com http://udacity.com because I hope the next generation won't dumb down like this generation. Way too many children fail at school, way too many pupil don't get higher education. The gap is becoming greater, your heritage becomes your identity. Orwell laid it out dangerously obvious in his novel. Most of it got real. Let's hope that the day "Lies" become "Truth" never arrives. We blame China, while we export the technology for it. We blame China while we implement that censoring infrastructure into our own Governments. Hypocrites.