| ▲ | auscad 8 hours ago |
| What makes this different from a typical attack on encryption is that this company (probably) knowingly distributed to and worked with criminal enterprises. But this article is written in a way that suggests that encryption is dangerous - an angle that the CBC has taken before - which makes sense considering that it is a government-owned news outlet in a Five Eyes member state. |
|
| ▲ | Cthulhu_ 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > (probably) knowingly That's doing a lot of heavy lifting. I'm sure they knew, personally, but since everything is encrypted, even for themselves, they have plausible deniability. If there is no solid proof of e.g. the company selling to someone they knew is a criminal, there's nothing to be done, legally speaking. And even then, criminals can talk using e.g. commercially available phones and mobile networks; are those networks / manufacturers / anyone but the criminal responsible for what is talked about? Yes the seller could reasonably assume their stuff was used by criminals, but so can Signal, Whatsapp, Messenger, anyone offering (encrypted) communication. It doesn't make them guilty themselves. |
| |
| ▲ | gambiting 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >>If there is no solid proof of e.g. the company selling to someone they knew is a criminal, there's nothing to be done, legally speaking. If you look at the article it has examples found of the company employees explicitly saying they are meeting with criminals so to play it safe. It doesn't get any more "solid proof" than that. >>are those networks / manufacturers / anyone but the criminal responsible for what is talked about? No, but again - read the article. There are examples of their employees saying that a client of theirs was arrested so they proactively wiped their phone - that could be interpreted as knowingly destroying evidence. They did end up changing this policy to not wipe phones of people who have been arrested, precisely because of this concern. >>Yes the seller could reasonably assume their stuff was used by criminals, but so can Signal, Whatsapp, Messenger, anyone offering (encrypted) communication The difference is most likely in how it's advertised and sold. Whatsapp is a free app that anyone can use, Facebook can reasonably claim that they don't advertise to criminals or encourage illegal use because the app is free to anyone. The owners of this app made it paid and they actively pursued clients they knew were members of criminal rings. Whether that passes the threshold for holding the company liable - that's for courts to decide. But that's generally where I think the line is. Anyone can make and sell a knife, but start selling knives(knowingly) to gang members and you're going to be in trouble even though selling a knife isn't illegal in itself. | |
| ▲ | or_am_i 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > there's nothing to be done, legally speaking. Even if true, this sure feels like a loophole though, like the Saul Goodman's burner phone side business, doesn't it? Should there perhaps be a stricter KYC requirement/similar measures to the same end when it comes to re-/selling technology explicitly designed for encrypted communication? Note that we are not just talking about an end-to-end encrypted messenger app, it's a whole integrated phone with an explicit special purpose. This feels more like a regulation oversight: the encrypted transmissions in AM/FM bands are outright prohibited in most Western jurisdictions after all, and so is possession of the respective equipment. |
|
|
| ▲ | devmor 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >“Privacy is really, really important and we all have the right to our privacy,” said Catherine De Bolle, executive director of Europol, the law enforcement agency of the European Union. “But when we see now that encrypted communication is really an enabler for crime, then we have to do something.” That was a pretty terrifying line to read - the idea that they feel comfortable assuming a great deal of the public will agree with or find this reasonable is pretty worrisome. |
| |
| ▲ | jfactorial 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "Freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of religion, these are really, really important and we all have rights to them..." said a law enforcement director who would soon make clear they didn't believe in rights at all. "But," they continued rather than stopping at defending rights, "when those rights can be used to enable activity which we deem criminal but hasn't yet been tested in court, we have to take them away." | |
| ▲ | try_the_bass 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think a great deal of the public does agree with this sentiment, though? In general, "the public" is usually okay with things that reduce anti-social behavior. | | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The public would probably say that they agree that things that reduce anti-social behavior. But if you instead phrase it as: “should international law enforcement have a perpetual copy of every single written message you have ever sent in order to reduce anti social behavior?” You will discover that there is a limit to what people will tolerate. | | |
| ▲ | lb1lf 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | There hopefully is, but it never ceases to amaze me how many, even highly intelligent, reasonable people, buy into the 'I don't do anything illegal, hence I have nothing to hide and off to the races we go' mindset. Heck, even if I try to point out all the fun side effects - say, how embarrassing it would be if a copy of your, ahem, correspondence with that cute intern was leaked, or simple guilt by association, like finding yourself on a watchlist after buying a car from a suspected Islamic militant or something similar, I am mostly met with a shrug and a variation on the theme 'Oh, they'd never do that / surely if that was to happen, it would be fixed in due course'. Basically, I more and more feel like the odd man out - as my position that 'Seeing as I am not doing anything criminal, the authorities have no business snooping on me' is seen as the militant one. Won't somebody think of the children, etc. Sigh. Rant over. |
| |
| ▲ | devmor 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean that it is worrisome that the public would agree with this, or at least that public sentiment is shifting in that direction enough that this statement doesn't cause visceral outlash against anyone that would say it. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | MadnessASAP 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > But this article is written in a way that suggests that encryption is dangerous - an angle that the CBC has taken before - which makes sense considering that it is a government-owned news outlet in a Five Eyes member state. While neither of these points is completely incorrect, that is a heck of a connection to make without evidence. |
|
| ▲ | petesergeant 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > which makes sense considering that it is a government-owned news outlet in a Five Eyes member state re the mention of FVEY, I strongly suspect it's law enforcement rather than the spooks who have any issue with encryption there. I don't think FVEY SIGINT are having any issue reading the messages they want to read, it's the City of Spokane Police Department, FBI Tampa, and the Manitoba RCMP who are struggling, and would like Apple to give them decryption keys. SIGINT would love you to believe they can't read your messages because of encryption. |
| |
| ▲ | lyu07282 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > SIGINT would love you to believe they can't read your messages because of encryption. I think this line of thinking can lead to a sort of defeatist ignorance. For example, can anyone break the default cipher suite of wireguard or gpg? I really don't think so. | | |
| ▲ | petesergeant 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > can anyone break the default cipher suite I think one would be very lucky to have an adversary who’s focusing their attacks at the strongest points | | |
| ▲ | lyu07282 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | fine just give up then, you already lost? Fuck that, let's not pretend like they are omnipotent all the fucking time. | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | mistrial9 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There are thousands of millions of people who are not criminals, who are not trying to be criminals.. yet somehow the literate audience is led by media such that a small, dedicated bunch of adults half-way around the world is proof positive that all encryption is "for me, not for thee" |
|
| ▲ | 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |
