I think the point was that trust for Facebook improves, therefore people use it more, and a supposed existing relationship benefits.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Facebook Fights US Government Demand to Break Messenger Encryption in Criminal Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think the point was that trust for Facebook improves, therefore people use it more, and a supposed existing relationship benefits.
I never use the FB app on my iPhone. Worst battery hog ever. I only view FB in safari. Before I deleted the app my phone wouldn’t make it through the day. Now I rarely go home with less than 30-40% battery. Messenger I only install to get rid of the notification and I give it no permission for anything when I install it. Then delete it right after. I would never buy a phone that forced me to keep an app like FB installed. Apple’s pre installed apps are much less intrusive.
Where in the Constitution is this prohibited?
[doublepost=1534698603][/doublepost]
To make the end-to-end encryption bogus, several engineers at FB would have to be in on it, not just the higher ups. It's very unlikely.
Last edited:
Yes, well, I didn’t mention guns.
Also, maybe due to the poor sentence structure you used, I can’t figure out what point you are trying to make.
Yeahhh that's another reason why I don't f*** with Samsung phones, or any Android phone for that matter. The Facebook app is just the mobile website except with cancer added; they don't even make the UX much better.
[doublepost=1534699678][/doublepost]
? The sentence makes sense to me. What you originally said is a modified version of the old quote "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."
[doublepost=1534699878][/doublepost]
Well the government can currently seize your guns to prevent crime, just like they want to "disarm" FB Messenger.
Last edited:
The 4A applies in this instance, especially with the law that was passed recently that requires the government to get a warrant to search any 3rd party for your data. Previously, all that they needed was a subpoena, because that 3rd party wasn't implicated in the investigation; now, they need a warrant.
Not necessarily again. All that would be needed is the encryption method and the cipher, assuming that both could be hacked or have been hacked. For example, using the old IDEA encryption method over SSLv1. Both have been hacked. Brute force the transmission to get to the encrypted message, brute force that, and you're done.
Or worse, one person kept both public and private keys used. Get those, and you're screwed, especially if they use both of those keys for every single message. Single point of failure.
BL.
You're right. Have edited the OP to hopefully make it clearer. The tl;dr: I agree with you.
Yes, so they force Facebook to put in a backdoor then only use it with a warrant, and it's totally constitutional. Not that I agree with the backdoors.
The bolded is the part where engineers would have to work together to make it insecure, so they wouldn't get away with it. The first one: Facebook doesn't use a cracked encryption method, nor does anyone else who isn't malicious. The second: E2E encryption means Facebook doesn't hold the keys.
Also, about telling the gov't which encryption method is used, that's not how it works. If you use an insecure encryption method, it will be hacked whether or not you tell anyone which one it is. They can reverse engineer based on your code, or if it's a well-known method, just guess.
Last edited:
They can't, without violating other laws protecting some business practices; this could even violate the 1A rights of the company.
No-one asked what encryption method Facebook uses; they just asked if it was possible.
Again, all true; Like I said above, they asked if it were possible, which it is. That doesn't mean that Facebook would use any encryption method or transfer mechanism that was already cracked.
All in all, Facebook is telling the government to go pound sand, similar to what Apple did in the San Bernardino shooting incident. The government needs to find their own methods to prove their cases, not force companies to do their work for them.
BL.
It happens the other direction. Where I live, there are lots of people who want to ban guns but oppose any government backdoors, citing the same reasons the pro-gun people cite. Generally the Republican party in the US are the people you're talking about, and the Democrats are the ones I'm referring to.
I don't see how this violates the First Amendment. The government outlaws certain technologies all the time.
The US Government, not any government, can prevent “bad people” from using encryption so breaking it for law-abiding citizens is ridiculous and has no point. They’ll just use freely available tools to communicate that the government has zero control over. It’s time that all governments accept that unbreakable encryption is here to stay. Enforcement can use other techniques to solve crime.
You'd be wrong. The 4A now applies, leading to further cracking down of what the government has and does not have the rights to get access to.
BL.
Somehow I think I’m right, the government can get what it wants. It just shouldn’t be able to Willy nilly scan the internet just because.
Warrant is useless if they can't read the messages
That;'s a bit of a reach. Apple, Facebook - they don't care who you do or don't believe in, they won't program a backdoor into their encryption.
You're on the wrong forum; conspiracists of absurd nonsensical allegations congregate elsewhere.
You're wrong.
https://venturebeat.com/2018/06/22/...need-a-warrant-to-obtain-phone-location-data/
While this first applies to location data, the parameters indicated by SCOTUS would also apply to all 3rd party issues similar to the one asking for location data. If the 3rd party has the data, the government can not simply subpoena the 3rd party to get that anymore; they require a warrant. Justice Roberts, as well as the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case stress that, with Roberts writing the majority opinion in the case.
BL.
What does that have to do with privacy?
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I am curious when Apple will extend the same encryption to iCloud and iCloud backups. That would demonstrate true conviction.
[doublepost=1534763010][/doublepost]
I'd also add that the US Constitution is a document of enumerated powers, not enumerated liberties. That should mean (at least until a century or more ago when the concept started to be eroded) that the government has to have the enumerated power to do something and that the Bill of Rights was secondary protection of people's rights, not the primary one.
Today many view the Constitution as something that doesn't really limit the government because something is for "a good cause" which is complete nonsense. The Constitution protects our liberties and when it is eroded, our liberties are eroded too.
Nothing. Many of us see cryptography as being a tool akin to
Yes, it was behind a paywall. I fixed it. We can disagree about how a judge would perceive it, but I think it would provide a lot of clarity if a judge would hear it.
The correct question if you have read the Constitution, the Federalist, Anti-federalist papers etc is:
Where in the Constitution is this power enumerated?
The courts and whoever else chose a long time ago not to go with that interpretation.
[doublepost=1534804868][/doublepost]
The US government considers encryption a weapon, in the context of export laws: no exporting weapons to enemy nations. As you know the Second Amendment protects our right to have weapons. So some people think that it extends to encryption. Problem is despite the Second, weapons can be confiscated in the name of preventing crime, which is what's going on in this case with FB, so the argument doesn't really work.
Also, I don't think encryption is a weapon. But I wonder if the First protects it since it's a form of speech (kidding).
Last edited: