public authorities "can secretly compel tech companies and individual technologists, including network administrators, sysadmins, and open source developers – to re-engineer software and hardware under their control, so that it can be used to spy on their users. Engineers can be penalized for refusing to comply with fines and prison"... sounds like a nightmare but it is reality in the #UK and #Australia eff.org/deeplinks/2018/12/new- #eff #spy #privacy #security

This is how it (should) work: In the case of Apple’s #iMessage, #Apple would be compelled to silently add new devices to the list apps think you own: when someone sends you a message, it will no longer just go to, say, your #iPhone, your #iPad, and your #MacBook – it will go to those devices, and a new addition, a spying device owned by the government...

... With messaging systems like #WhatsApp, the approach will be slightly different: your user interface will claim you’re in a one-on-one conversation, but behind the scenes, the company will be required to silently switch you into a group chat. Two of the people in the group chat will be you and your friend. The other will be invisible, and will be operated by the government.

bottom line: Don't trust the shiny advertising brochure which tells you about end-to-end encryption, security and privacy if you only get a black box at the end. Only #FreeSoftware, #OpenStandards, #federation and the ability to self host will be able to secure your privacy.

@bjoern ... more of a problem if the person hosting the infrastructure doesn't have sufficient skills or resources to actually keep the environment safe and maintained all the time. That's why I'd rather plead for , - and *reliable*, trustworthy, transparently funded organizations (Wikimedia? FSFE? ...?) running such services for end-users in a professional yet privacy-aware way.

@z428 The problem, with this laws in place public authorities will demand this backdoors from this organizations as well. And they only have two options: comply or shut the service down. Both options will not give us sustainable freedom and privacy respecting tools.

@bjoern @z428 Would it be possible to build a system where compromising the user's privacy requires the *unanimous* cooperation of *all* (or most) of a group of multiple servers? And then host the servers in different jurisdictions, ideally ones that are hostile to each other.

Follow

@sonata @bjoern
@wim_v12e Yes, maybe these are good ideas. I don't really know whether these issues could be handled entirely technologically. Maybe a mixture of stronger cryptography, anonymizing network services and P2P networks *could* help around some of these. But in the end, I'm afraid there always will be easy-to-access weak points in these systems. ISPs. End-user facing operating systems. App stores. Browser manufacturers. 😐

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

One of the first Mastodon instances, there is no specific topic we're into, just enjoy your time!