[HN Gopher] New branding, same scanning: Upload moderation under...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       New branding, same scanning: Upload moderation undermines end-to-
       end encryption [pdf]
        
       Author : unnervingduck
       Score  : 125 points
       Date   : 2024-06-17 15:54 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (signal.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (signal.org)
        
       | mihaic wrote:
       | After losing my phone and not having a way to recover a lot of
       | data, I've come to the realization that I don't want end to end
       | encryption. I just want a responsible entity to store all my data
       | in a secure way, and they'd only make money from what I'd pay
       | them. If I lose everything, I still want access to my data, even
       | if a proof of identity costs me.
       | 
       | Of course incentive systems make that very hard in today's
       | corporate world, but I can still wish for my ideal world.
        
         | scotty79 wrote:
         | I don't think end-to-end encryption prevents server backup. It
         | means that decryption keys is in your mind and at most on your
         | personal device.
        
           | fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
           | A server backup is useless if you can't decrypt it and it's
           | very easy to accidentally lose the keys for end-to-end
           | decryption. I too have lost my Signal history by migrating to
           | a new phone incorrectly.
        
             | 7bit wrote:
             | The two are not related. Signal has no proper backup and
             | restore, otherwise you could have restored.mulziple times
             | over. It's one of the things that piss me off about signal.
             | Just give me a fucking Backup that I can restore on android
             | and iPhone and desktop alike!
        
               | fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
               | They are related: even if Signal had a backup, you'd have
               | to have some way to recover the key when you lose your
               | device. For example, Matrix does offer backups but you
               | need a key to decrypt the backup if you lose access to
               | all your verified devices.
               | 
               | Without some easy to use out-of-band key backup solution,
               | an E2EE server backup is no backup at all.
        
               | fl0id wrote:
               | But it's not related to this story. Nobody prevents you
               | from using services that do not operate like signal (and
               | esp with desktop it is now very easy to backup your
               | messages) Just use those. This is just about whether sth
               | like signal should be allowed to exist.
        
               | fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
               | The GP of my post was:
               | 
               | > After losing my phone and not having a way to recover a
               | lot of data, I've come to the realization that I don't
               | want end to end encryption.
               | 
               | Effective backups and key management are 100% related to
               | this thread
        
           | nine_k wrote:
           | No, the key is also on a piece of paper somewhere safe. On a
           | piece of metal if you care so much, see crypto wallet keys.
           | 
           | This helps against everything except a valid search warrant
           | from your government. If you don't do outright illegal stuff,
           | and don't live under an authoritarian regime, it should be
           | fine. (If you do both, you have bigger problems.)
        
         | Retr0id wrote:
         | I'm pretty sure you just described iMessage + iCloud backup
         | (among other setups)
        
         | squigz wrote:
         | This is not just idealistic - it's bordering on naive. Tech
         | companies have proven, repeatedly, over decades, that they are
         | not responsible with our data.
        
           | AlexandrB wrote:
           | And even if they _are_ at one point in time, there 's no
           | guarantee that this behavior will continue. The rush to scan
           | everything into AI is a prime example.
        
         | dijit wrote:
         | Your ideal situation is likely federation.
         | 
         | But Signal doesn't want that, and most people are too cowardly
         | to trust anyone other than the people who absolutely _must_
         | make a profit running such a system.
        
           | lukeschlather wrote:
           | Federation doesn't help at all if your host is untrustworthy.
           | This is a question of having strong data privacy rules baked
           | into law and also a good compliance regime. In fact,
           | federation can make things a lot worse since federation makes
           | it a lot harder to reason about who is transmitting and
           | storing your data.
        
             | dijit wrote:
             | Nothing helps if your host is untrustworthy.
             | 
             | But need I go into the little rant about how signal
             | controlling the clients and the network means you have to
             | take it on trust?
             | 
             | However the point of federation is that you _can_ find
             | someone you trust. - and you get to control data residency,
             | all those weird hard to comply with laws become super easy
             | if your uncle hosts a family chat server that federates
             | with others; or your ISP, or your favourite local library.
        
       | Centigonal wrote:
       | I just want to express how much I appreciate Meredith Whittaker.
       | She helped organize the Google walkouts, She's been working on AI
       | safety since at least 2016, She advised Lina Khan at the FTC, and
       | new she's out here advocating for preserving E2EE. A lot of
       | people online give her flak for her opinions, but she's been
       | consistently very loud and occasionally influential.
       | 
       | She's done some cool uncontroversial tech work too (like helping
       | start M-Lab), but her advocacy is what is most interesting to me.
       | I don't agree with all of her positions, but I like that there
       | are still people in the tech world who are willing to take strong
       | and sometimes radical stances on moral issues against the current
       | of capitalism. I feel like she's the closest thing we have to an
       | rms-type figure today.
        
       | eterps wrote:
       | I'm wondering if this proposal is enforced, and you opt out, how
       | would it be known whether you're sending someone a URL? How would
       | a URL even be distinguished from other text when you have opted
       | out?
       | 
       | I suppose you could detect some patterns, and it definitely
       | wouldn't be clickable. But is the text google.com considered a
       | URL for example? I guess it isn't?
       | 
       | (yeah I know, it's a stupid law anyway, but just wondering)
        
         | pera wrote:
         | It wont be perfect and it will fail in stupid ways, by design.
        
         | Sephr wrote:
         | If you 'opt out', service providers can prevent you from
         | sending _anything_ under these new rules. You might not even be
         | able to reach out to support to complain without consenting to
         | your messages being scanned.
        
         | throwaway22032 wrote:
         | It's like the oldschool scam days on MMO's.
         | 
         | g3tfr33g0ld DOT som
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-06-17 23:01 UTC)