• Emptiness
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      This is from July 11th. Nothing new as of now that I’ve seen.

      But closer to October we should be on the lookout.

  • stebo
    link
    fedilink
    719 months ago

    so we can’t have secrets but they can?

  • @Papanca@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    649 months ago

    The content of this document is not accessible. Nevertheless, a request for access can be sent to the department.

    • ☂️-
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      thats because they want to watch you much much closer, but still pretend that decision was democratic. so they try again until we are too fed up to care.

  • @TCB13@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    22
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    First they obliterate telegram (most likely the only ones that would not comply and still offer service in Europe, Facebook and Apple would just comply, Signal would drop Europe) and a few days later they restart talks on this.

    • Pasta Dental
      link
      fedilink
      179 months ago

      Telegram isn’t in trouble because they are a ““private”” messenger because 1) they aren’t and 2) they basically asked for it. They are hosting pirates, drug dealers and scammers and they refuse government requests for the data they have about the user. That is the issue: not complying with data requests. For example, signal, a truly secure messenger, will comply with data requests and will send the authorities everything they have about a user, which is really not that much to begin with. This whole Telegram story is absolutely unrelated to chat control

      • @endofline@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        119 months ago

        I beg to differ - meta both facebook and Instagram have loads of issue with crimes like human trafficking, pornography including the revenge one, scams and even live streams of rapes.

        Every time you try to report scams or even impersonating anybody they reply “it doesn’t violate community standards”

        Is Zuckerberger being accused of human, sex , pedophilia and drugs trafficking

        https://www.firstpost.com/world/instagram-enabled-paedophiles-to-find-child-pornography-prey-on-children-12707612.html

        https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/instagram-pedophile-network-child-pornography-researchers-1235635743/

        https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/07/meta-instagram-self-generated-child-sexual-abuse-materials

        Of course it is about chat control. American companies do allow sniffing the traffic, “the russian” telegram doesn’t allow sniffing.

        That’s the only reason

        • Pasta Dental
          link
          fedilink
          19 months ago

          Yes there m illegal things on social media, but they are not public group chats with hundreds of people in them sharing info on how to do x crime better. What you will mostly see on Instagram etc when it’s about illegal stuff are links to those telegram channels. And yes meta/everyone else should definitely do better at moderatibg their platforms.

      • @TCB13@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        29 months ago

        I agree with you, but just think about this:

        signal, a truly secure messenger, will comply with data requests and will send the authorities everything they have about a user, which is really not that much to begin with.

        A govt asks Signal for info on a user, then Signal hands over a bunch of IP logs, metadata and a few encrypted messages that are still pending delivery or something on their servers.

        Do you remember the FBI vs Apple situation, they wanted backdoors / access to E2EE stuff and Apple was refusing to provide and they went against one of the largest tech companies out there. Do you really believe that the US govt just went after Apple but wouldn’t go after a small company like Signal? This looks shady - almost like there’s a security vulnerability / backdoor in Signal they can use whenever they want.

        Why would they go after the “not E2EE” chat but not after the “unbreakable and private” one? Telegram delivers trust, users trust that they won’t share any info to govts. Signal only delivers a promise that their E2EE will be enough to make the information govts get useless.

        This whole Telegram story is absolutely unrelated to chat control

        Chat control is exactly about baking backdoors and providing govts full access to chat logs etc. something that Telegram would never be okay with. They don’t even reply to govts requests most of the time, let alone be compromised at that level.

      • @winterayars@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        29 months ago

        Specifically, they have the technological ability to prevent some crimes on their platform and have repeatedly refused to do so, or even engage with attempts to do so. Because they’re not E2EE they can see what everyone is doing and are therefore legally required to step in when someone is (for example) selling drugs on their platform.

        Signal (etc) have no insight into the actions of their users and when they are legally required to take action they do, they take the minimal legally required action (unlike other services from, ex, Apple). Signal follows the law, Telegram does not.

        States are really pissy about E2EE for this (and other) reasons. They want to get rid of it because they want to monitor all private conversations. That’s why E2EE is important.

        • @TCB13@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          19 months ago

          This has nothing to do with the ability for the company to see what users do, but with the fact that govts can order Signal and others to hand user data, ban chats and whatnot while Telegram simply ignores requests like those.

          Govts aren’t pissed about the fact that Telegram might be an accessory to a crime, they’re pissed because they can’t compromise it. Do you remember the FBI vs Apple situation, they wanted backdoors / access to E2EE stuff and Apple was refusing to provide and they went against one of the largest tech companies out there. Do you really believe that the US govt just went after Apple but wouldn’t go after a small company like Signal? This looks shady - almost like there’s a security vulnerability / backdoor in Signal they can use whenever they want.

          • @winterayars@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            19 months ago

            They can order Signal to turn over data (and the have) and signal has complied when it was legally required of them to do so, handing over all of their no data.

            That’s the difference.

            If that weren’t true they wouldn’t be so constantly upset about E2EE.

            • redrum
              link
              fedilink
              09 months ago

              nd when a judge or a 3 letters agency will request to Signal that they want access to the messages that somebody will send from a date?

              It’s their app, and they can do it. Do you think that they will refuse?

              • @winterayars@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                2
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                No, they cannot do it. That’s what E2EE means. It means they do not have the technological ability to do it. It is not possible.

                Yes, even if a judge orders. You can see instances of that on their website: https://signal.org/bigbrother/

                Yes there are weak points (the huge one with Signal being: requiring your cell phone number as a part of authentication) but that’s far beyond the level of technical expertise required to, say, just intercept clear text communications, ex from Telegram. If a government is wiretapping you then you’ve got problems that neither Signal nor Telegram can solve.

                Now maybe you will suspect that a three letter agency will force them to do something bad, like send a suspect a hacked/backdoored version of the app or something but by and large i don’t think they would do that. They’d just go to Google or Apple and put a keylogger on your phone, or some other solution. Realistically, though, this is a level of effort far beyond what >99% of all humans need to worry about. Choosing Telegram over Signal because you’re afraid the government is manipulating your Signal app is a sign of incoherent paranoia.

                A more serious concern would be, for example, the government capturing all data sent across the Internet and then holding onto it until some hypothetical future computer is developed that can just break the encryption. That’s still pretty silly but it’s something the US (at least) is doing. Still way beyond what they would need to get your Telegram messages because, again, they don’t need to decrypt those. They can just look.

                The difference being: Signal cooperates as they’re legally required to buy do not have the technological capability to betray you. Telegram has the technological capability to betray you (and governments can spy on Telegram, with or without Telegram’s assistance) but refuses to cooperate.

                Signal is much better and more reliable in this.

                • redrum
                  link
                  fedilink
                  09 months ago

                  Signal can add backdoors to their own app and, if the app get compromised (or the device) the security of the encryption model is not relevant. It’s the reason because I see comparable Signal and Telegram.

                  Signal is open source, but (info based in this 3 years old thread on f-droid):

                  1. Have binary blobs and propietary dependencies.
                  2. Don’t let reproducible builds.
                  3. It’s hostile to forks (they blocked libreSignal from their servers)
                  4. Don’t want independent builds from f-droid (nor any fork in f-droid)

                  Which no seems FOSS friendly.

    • @JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      79 months ago

      It was a good line but his general prediction was, thankfully, wrong. With caveats, we’re not at all where 1984 forecast we would end up. Humans turn out to be more allergic to oppression than he imagined.

      • @BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        99 months ago

        I dunno, I see a LOT of what he said existing today, especially the level of surveillance and control.

        I highly recommend “Taking Control of Your Personal Data” by prof. Jennifer Golbeck, published by The Teaching Company, ISBN:978-1629978390, likely available at your local library as a DVD or streaming.

        I think it’s the third episode where she clarifies how extensive online surveillance is - I was surprised, it was even greater than even my paranoic mind thought.

    • foremanguy
      link
      fedilink
      39 months ago

      Say the thing to the most people and the dangers associated