this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2025
314 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

61904 readers
3341 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 other!
  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
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s
enu
technopagan
L4s
314
Time to get serious with E2E encrypted messaging (techcrunch.com)
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/technology
99 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I currently use Telegram for my friends and family, but have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the UK Government is either reaching agreement for backdoors with messaging services, or is trying its hardest to.

I'm also on Element/Matrix. Before I try to get my contacts to join me on there, should I be aware of any privacy issues or is that a good place to head?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Vinstaal0 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

There should be a difference between using Whatsapp while in a county with good privacy laws (like one of the EU member) or one without.

As far as I know Meta only collects and abuses data it get’s from people where there are now laws in place to prevent it (so why wouldn’t they do it).

We should normalise the audits on security and privacy that are done by proper accountants. It doesn’t help that a lot of people call bookkeepers accountants which isn’t correct, but a signature from an accountant (CPA/AA/RA or whatever) should have some impact to prove the services are secure or private.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

As far as I know Meta only collects and abuses data it get’s from people where there are now laws in place to prevent it (so why wouldn’t they do it).

Unfortunately, in practice, the laws don't seem to mean much to the wealthy.

Like other gigantic companies that have billions of dollars, it's easier and more profitable to ask forgiveness than permission; paying legal fines that are 0.01% of their overall profits is just the cost of doing business. Zuck has been caught on multiple occasions skirting the law (see the most recent revelation of them surreptitiously leeching scores of books from Anna's Archive and a previous one of partnering with Cambridge Analytica, for example).

I'm all good with having companies submit to hostile financial audits, but I'm not sure how a CPA would be qualified to validate security or privacy. Code security audits should be done by cryptographic experts, and I think you would need both.

Perhaps one day, we'll have Certified Public Cryptographers that have a fiduciary duty to ensure people are secure or private.