ArcherBoy27
ArcherBoy27 t1_ja4uvhh wrote
Reply to comment by Prestigious_Push_947 in Signal CEO: We “1,000% won’t participate” in UK law to weaken encryption by ActivePersona
Great source, everywhere I could find didn't mention anything like that. You are giving me no reason to believe you.
No need to be aggressive, I asked for a source since I couldn't find one to match what you are saying.
Besides this has nothing to do with client side scanning, the reason signal said what they said, at all.
Forget it, I'm not spending time with someone that can't be civil.
ArcherBoy27 t1_ja3n0ub wrote
Reply to comment by spektre in Signal CEO: We “1,000% won’t participate” in UK law to weaken encryption by ActivePersona
Relevant XKCD
ArcherBoy27 t1_ja2h05o wrote
Reply to comment by Prestigious_Push_947 in Signal CEO: We “1,000% won’t participate” in UK law to weaken encryption by ActivePersona
Yes I know. I was just stating "just" encryption in transit isn't E2EE (I.e. https).
E2ee is encrypted from end to end. From when it is written and saved on the source to when it is received and read on the destination. Anything except you that can read messages before you do, without your permission, and potentially send it off somewhere breaks E2EE, which is what they are proposing.
> It does not provide other types of encryption (i.e. encryption at rest) for your messages.
Going to need a source on that, no encryption at rest. Nothing I can find suggests that. I have found some claim it can be broken with physical device access but if the device itself is encrypted then it doesn't matter.
ArcherBoy27 t1_ja0g2bk wrote
Reply to comment by Prestigious_Push_947 in Signal CEO: We “1,000% won’t participate” in UK law to weaken encryption by ActivePersona
I never suggested they were, just stated that only encryption in transit isn't e2ee. If it was, this wouldn't even be an issue in the first place. I understand the proposal just fine.
ArcherBoy27 t1_j9y3lmt wrote
Reply to comment by HRKing505 in Signal CEO: We “1,000% won’t participate” in UK law to weaken encryption by ActivePersona
Pretty much, "we are not banning locks, of course not. But we will be requiring there to be a cutout in the frame so we can push the door open and walk in to check your kids. We will only walk in to check on your kids, promise"
ArcherBoy27 t1_j9y1lvz wrote
Reply to comment by megahamstertron in Signal CEO: We “1,000% won’t participate” in UK law to weaken encryption by ActivePersona
My favorite part is the end of that segment.
Basically says "we will read your messages but only to protect children, only for that purpose". Like that is any better and offers no guarantees that it wont be misused.
ArcherBoy27 t1_j9xpzay wrote
Reply to comment by Prestigious_Push_947 in Signal CEO: We “1,000% won’t participate” in UK law to weaken encryption by ActivePersona
Encryption in transit is HTTPS, that's not end to end.
What the bill is saying is we can't read your letters in the middle so we will read them over your shoulder instead. How comforting...
ArcherBoy27 t1_j9xpt95 wrote
Reply to comment by 1wiseguy in Signal CEO: We “1,000% won’t participate” in UK law to weaken encryption by ActivePersona
Yup, indeed.
From 00:20 on encryption. It would be funny if it weren't so dystopian.
ArcherBoy27 t1_ja4v4ju wrote
Reply to comment by Prestigious_Push_947 in Signal CEO: We “1,000% won’t participate” in UK law to weaken encryption by ActivePersona
I'll agree to disagree.
Not sure there was a need to name call. Completely uncalled for. Comment with respect or not at all.