This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
From a cybersecurity perspective, it is nearly impossible to create a backdoor to a communications product that is only accessible for certain purposes or under certain conditions.
Oh? It is possible? Pray tell, how?
Screen recording or snapshots like Windows Recall. Or keyboard telemitry.
But that's it I think.
It's well known that iphone, google samsung and microsoft android keyboards are the most used keyloggers in the world.
I didn't know that. Who do they send these logs to?
The NSA and advertisers. It was confirmed the MS Android keyboards were keyloggers after microsoft suffered a data breach revealing millions of typing records, so it's not far fetched to assume windows does the same, especially after you see the sheer amount of data being sent straight to microsoft servers when analysing traffic.
The real challenge is getting loved ones to care enough to use a FREE encrypted communication app.
Its like they see privacy as an anti-feature and would rather leave the door wide open for anyone to come rummage through their messages.
In order to retain our rights to private communications, we have to win every time.
In order to take them away, they only have to win once.
They will keep trying.
Stay vigilant.
We need to reverse this. We need to make sure we only need to win once, to permenantly secure this. This is why constitutions exist. Instead of passively waiting, we need to go on the attack, and strike the final blow, before they do. We need these rights secured by constitutions, so they can't be so easily taken away from us. I read that for instance Germany has article 10 of their Grundgesetz, which, (in this translation), states:
"(1) The privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications shall be inviolable."
But sadly it's being followed by:
"(2) Restrictions may be ordered only pursuant to a law. If the restriction serves to protect the free democratic basic order or the existence or security of the Federation or of a Land, the law may provide that the person affected shall not be informed of the restriction and that recourse to the courts shall be replaced by a review of the case by agencies and auxiliary agencies appointed by the legislature."
I imagine more countries might have these half-ass measures. Laws that read '(1) X is a fundemental right and nobody can ever take it away from you. (2) except ofcourse goverment, who can do as they please'. I suppose ultimately it requires legislators to give up power, and obviously that only happens under external pressure. Currently people don't seem to care enough to put pressure on these types of issues. I mean, if people cared, they'd move to private services, and if they did then this would be less of an issue. It's an issue precisely because people don't seem to care nor understand the relevance of privacy.
So we need people to care temporarily, and then use that momentum to get our constitutions changed. And for that we probably need a scandal, one that's completely outrageous, while still being quite easy to understand. I don't know if or how this would come to pass, but I wouldn't say it's completely unthinkable. Perhaps we also need some books or films, like a modern 1984, some AI-dystopia. that atleast gets cultural elites, but preferably larger parts of society, to worry about their freedom. In a sense doing the groundwork, and then when minds are ready, we need to strike.
Stay vigilant indeed.
This type of democracy is awful sometimes.
if we depose them we only need to win once
Yeah but as of right now they have more firepower
If we kill them it helps.
We are supposed to trust our governments however it is pretty obvious that a Trump could come along and seriously misuse the backdoors that were said to be necessary to protect us. It doesn’t matter if you trust the current mob, it’s a rogue future mob we have to guard against.
Border guards searching phones and making arrests after finding anything critical of Trump, on the grounds of "extremism" is a pretty big indicator.
If the law ever says that we are not allowed to have encryption, I am absolutely going to be one of the first ones going to jail because I'm not going to put up with that.
The way I see it is you can throw me in jail where you then have to feed me, give me proper climate control, give me a place to sleep, etc. all on your dime.
How long do you think your rights in prison are going to last once they've eliminated your most basic rights outside of prison?
I mean men are already getting raped in prisons, it's only a matter of time that they introduce electric-chair torture
No you won't. You have no idea how utterly inhumane US prisons are.
Not with for profit prisons buddy!
This is a huge part of how the system's rigged against you, it gives incentive for the most braindead laws, which don't benefit society in any way and make up for police incompetence, designed to imprison as many (poor) people as possible such as the conjoined enterprise laws in the UK, and is also a huge reason cannabis is criminalised in so many places.
throw me in jail where you then have to feed me, give me proper climate control, give me a place to sleep
Hope you don't live in the United States. You might end up in a Salvadoran prison. Or, almost as bad, an American one.
Lol, fair point. I suspect though that so many people would just ignore that as unlawful that they would have no way of possibly enforcing it.
I get it, it's internet hyperbole. But dude, if that happens please fight back. Protests, voting, or god forbid gunfire if need be. But don't just give up and die, that's what they want.
For the entire time I have lived on this planet, I've been pretty confident that my daily activities would generally be considered legal, and that the Federal Government had literally zero reason to be interested in me or anything I did.
Now, though, I am aware that the government can disappear me and rendition me to a death camp, without trial and even without habeas corpus.
As far as I can tell, if I'm being arrested I no longer have anything to lose. I am aware of that, and should it come to that, I understand why people are saying to act accordingly.
That is as far as I am going to say in this conversation.
They only need to succeed once. Just keeeeep trying and trying and trying, keep renaming the same turd to some new shiny acronym, and keep trying until you statistically have to succeed
No. Everything is still closed and not interoperable.
I've just read about Google Wave.
I think we need a global low-latency (no waiting an hour for a message to propagate) alternative to Usenet. And there should be two separate layers - unique article (or message) identifiers and the transport (be it lots of news servers exchanging articles as the main layer, or as an auxiliary level users exchanging them p2p with some way to verify an identifier and the fact that it was posted in some specific group by some specific person at some specific time). And cryptographic identities. And cryptographic alternative to DNS inside that - with name-to-identifier records signed and verifiable via a chain to some known name authority, not querying a service.
An article can contain many things, it can be a hypertext page. It can, maybe, contain some header allowing to build articles into hierarchies with such a naming service providing paths. And navigate those with a browser. So you'd have a system friendly to mobile devices, to privacy, to economy of resources, to preserving information, to indexing and scraping.
But I think I've missed something technical preventing this from being created in my thoughts.
I at least have a core group of friends that use Signal and I keep Element installed on my phone and computers hoping someday more people move to that over the next decade
Signal ? Why not session ?
