this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2024
532 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

59776 readers
4692 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] phoneymouse 199 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

The US Govt 5 years ago: e2e encryption is for terrorists. The govt should have backdoors.

The US Govt now: Oh fuck, our back door got breached, everyone quick use e2e encryption asap!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 hours ago

More like 23 years ago when the Patriot Act was signed, and every time it has been re-authorized/renamed since. Every President since Bush Jr. is complicit, and I'm getting most of them in the previous 70-ish years (or more) wish they could've had that bill as well.

[–] Agent641 60 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

The Australian government tried to straight up ban encryption some years ago.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

I laughed so much at that. Encryption is literally just long complicated numbers combined with other long complicated numbers using mathematical formulae. You can't ban maths.

If I remember correctly, there's also a law in Australia where they can force tech companies to introduce backdoors in their systems and encryption algorithms, and the company must not tell anyone about it. AFAIK they haven't tried to actually use that power yet, but it made the (already relatively stagnant) tech market in Australia even worse. Working in tech is the main reason I left Australia for the USA - there's just so many more opportunities and significantly higher paying jobs for software developers in Silicon Valley.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

You can’t ban maths.

tell me about it; it tried that against my teacher in middle school

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 hours ago

You can try, and in the US, we have export restrictions on cryptography (ITAR restrictions), so certain products cannot be exported. But you can print out the algorithm and carry it on a plane though, so I'm not sure what the point is...

[–] rottingleaf 0 points 9 hours ago

I laughed so much at that. Encryption is literally just long complicated numbers combined with other long complicated numbers using mathematical formulae. You can’t ban maths.

Now laugh at banning chemistry and physics (guns and explosives and narcotics). Take a laugh at banning murder too - how do you ban every action leading to someone's death?

and the company must not tell anyone about it

Any "must not tell" law is crap. Unless you signed some NDA knowing full well what it is about.

Any kind of "national secret disclosure" punishment when you didn't sign anything to get that national secret is the same.

It's an order given to a free person, not a voluntarily taken obligation.

That said, you can't fight force with words.

[–] theherk 22 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Different parts of the government. Both existed then and now. There has for a long time been a substantial portion of the government, especially defense and intelligence, that rely on encrypted comms and storage.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

FBI has definitely always been anti-encryption

[–] [email protected] 17 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

I have never understood why electronic communications are not protected as physical mail

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 hours ago

Because physical mail can be easily opened with a warrant. Encryption can be nigh impossible to break. The idea of a vault that cannot be opened no matter how hard you try is something that scares law makers.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 hours ago

Because the USA has been a broken fascist husk ever since the red scare and has been in slow decline ever since.

[–] Astronauticaldb 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Lobbying as well as developmental issues I would assume. I'm no real developer just yet but I'd imagine creating robust security protocols is time-consuming and thinking of every possible vulnerability is not entirely worth it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

No, security is pretty easy and has been for decades. PGP has been a thing since 1991, and other encryption schemes were a thing long before. ProtonMail uses PGP and SMTP, the latter of which predates PGP by about a decade (though modern SMPT with extensions wasn't a thing until 1995).

So at least for email, there's little technical reason why we couldn't all use top of the line security. It's slightly more annoying because you need to trade keys, but email services could totally make it pretty easy (e.g. send the PGP key with the first email, and the email service sends it with an encrypted reply and stores them for later use).

The reason we don't is because servers wouldn't be able to read our email. The legitimate use case here is searching (Tuta solves this by searching on the client, ProtonMail stores unencrypted subject lines), and 20 years ago, that would've been a hardship with people moving to web services. Today, phones can store emails, so it's not an issue anymore, so it probably comes down to being able to sell your data.

Many to many encryption is more complicated (e.g. Lemmy or Discord), so I understand why chat took a while to be end to end encrypted (Matrix can do this, for example), but there are plenty of FOSS examples today, and pretty much every device has encryption acceleration in the CPU, so there's no technical reason why it's impractical today.

The reason it's not uniquitous today is because data is really valuable, both to police and advertisers.