you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 189 points 2 years ago (6 children)
  • [–] 107 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If you distribute encrypted materials you also need to distribute a means of decryption. I'm willing to bet a honeypot was used to trick him into distributing his csam right to the government hinself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 96 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    Neither Tor nor end-to-end encrypted messengers will cover the endpoints. It's possible that they caught him using good old fashioned detective work. You don't need a software back door for that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Tor was created by NSA, half of Tor servers are run by NSA, not that secure

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Tor was created by the Naval Research Labs, and was released to the public because it is secure.

    The problem is that if it's only the CIA or DIA using it, it's easy figure out who is using it and where. Make it global and now there is a lot of noise to separate out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Yeah, the security of tor relies on the nodes being different, but when most of them are owned by the same person/government body the security go downhill, sadly i2p isn't that popular, because every person is a node

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 82 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    He didn’t use encrypted everything. He had a public telegram group chat in which he stored a lot of his material. Which, as many people in the comments on the article pointed out, is not encrypted, but is presented by telegram as if it is. That’s likely how they caught him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

    To be clear, it’s encrypted*.

    * If you enable it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Recent events have taught me that only individual chats are encrypted*. Group chats don't have that feature.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    In telegram nothing is e2e encrypted unless you specifically ask it to be and when you do, it kills all the functionality that makes it better than others.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    That's what I said. The person I replied to said that all messages are encrypted* with the asterisk being only if you specifically enable it. I clarified that it doesn't apply to group chats though. I don't use Telegram so the loss of functionality is actually a bigger deal to me than the argument around E2EE. Can you explain what features are lost when you enable it? It's a messaging app so I'm curious what you sacrifice for E2EE.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago

    Telegram groups are not E2E.

    Chats are encrypted, but the servers hold the encryption keys (I believe).

    There are one-to-one chats that are full e2e, but you have to enable it. And it has all sorts of compromises.

    Qualifier: this is as dicumented by telegram. Since it's not open source, we can't really verify it

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    There is no point in encrypting a public group chat since anyone can join and decrypt it anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    The secret chats feature isn’t between anyone I believe, it’s between two people. But I don’t actually know for certain because I’ve not looked into it beyond a cursory googling.

    That said, you’d be correct in that just like any service out there, the moment you let random people join there’s no level of encryption that can keep your secrets secret.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    It works well in Matrix, and you can restrict who joins on that platform.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    If you restrict it, then it isn't public. I'm not saying that encrypted group chats are useless. But if it is public and anyone can join anyway, then encryption adds no secrecy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Right, I'm just saying that other platforms give you the option of E2EE group chats, which makes sense if you know your group will remain fixed to a certain size. For truly public groups, yeah, encryption just adds a lot of processing overhead without much benefit.

    I, personally, would prefer a platform that gives me the option rather than doesn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    It's better they don't disclose it and catch more people doing the same.

    I'm all for transparency but if that means less caught child molesters, I'm ok with a little obfuscation, even from the fucking pigs.

  • source
  • parent