▲ 401 ▼ US: Alaska man busted with 10,000+ child sex abuse images despite his many encrypted apps (arstechnica.com) submitted 2 years ago by some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org to c/technology@lemmy.world 132 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] shamrockpreacher5@reddthat.com 189 points 2 years ago (6 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Wilzax@lemmy.world 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] shamrockpreacher5@reddthat.com 51 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cakey@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago* Hey, could I get some info on the Full running browser in his SIM card Thing? I'm quite curious and haven't been able of finding anything on the internet about it permalink fedilink source parent [–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] mkwt@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago Well it probably wasn't a Vic Mackey-style rubber hose attack, because it sounds like this chump is getting hauled into court. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Vilian@lemmy.ca -8 points 2 years ago (2 children) Tor was created by NSA, half of Tor servers are run by NSA, not that secure permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 24 points 2 years ago (1 child) Tor was created by the NRL, which is a part of the US Navy and Marine Corps. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago Meh, I heard wrong them sorry permalink fedilink source parent [–] psmgx@lemmy.world 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 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 permalink fedilink source parent [+] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world -66 points 2 years ago (1 child) Please don't talk about child predators, and use the term "back door" in the same sentence. It ain't right.... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yoshisaur@lemm.ee 37 points 2 years ago we’re talking about encryption here, not…that. please get your mind out of the gutter permalink fedilink source parent [–] CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 years ago* (4 children) To be clear, it’s encrypted*. * If you enable it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Deello@lemm.ee 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Geth@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deello@lemm.ee 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 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 permalink fedilink source parent [–] uzay@infosec.pub 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It works well in Matrix, and you can restrict who joins on that platform. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] uzay@infosec.pub 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] datendefekt@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago AFAIK chat contents are stored unencrypted on the server. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sneptaur@pawb.social 4 points 2 years ago They got it by running a honeypot exit node like they always do permalink fedilink source parent [–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] brezel@piefed.social 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) my guess is that a large number of tor exit nodes is run by government agencies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] orcrist@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Wildly_Utilize@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago .onions: am i a joke to you? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Wilzax@lemmy.world 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] shamrockpreacher5@reddthat.com 51 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cakey@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago* Hey, could I get some info on the Full running browser in his SIM card Thing? I'm quite curious and haven't been able of finding anything on the internet about it permalink fedilink source parent
[+] shamrockpreacher5@reddthat.com 51 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cakey@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago* Hey, could I get some info on the Full running browser in his SIM card Thing? I'm quite curious and haven't been able of finding anything on the internet about it permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cakey@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago* Hey, could I get some info on the Full running browser in his SIM card Thing? I'm quite curious and haven't been able of finding anything on the internet about it permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] mkwt@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago Well it probably wasn't a Vic Mackey-style rubber hose attack, because it sounds like this chump is getting hauled into court. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Vilian@lemmy.ca -8 points 2 years ago (2 children) Tor was created by NSA, half of Tor servers are run by NSA, not that secure permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 24 points 2 years ago (1 child) Tor was created by the NRL, which is a part of the US Navy and Marine Corps. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago Meh, I heard wrong them sorry permalink fedilink source parent [–] psmgx@lemmy.world 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 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 permalink fedilink source parent [+] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world -66 points 2 years ago (1 child) Please don't talk about child predators, and use the term "back door" in the same sentence. It ain't right.... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yoshisaur@lemm.ee 37 points 2 years ago we’re talking about encryption here, not…that. please get your mind out of the gutter permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago Well it probably wasn't a Vic Mackey-style rubber hose attack, because it sounds like this chump is getting hauled into court. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Vilian@lemmy.ca -8 points 2 years ago (2 children) Tor was created by NSA, half of Tor servers are run by NSA, not that secure permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 24 points 2 years ago (1 child) Tor was created by the NRL, which is a part of the US Navy and Marine Corps. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago Meh, I heard wrong them sorry permalink fedilink source parent [–] psmgx@lemmy.world 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 24 points 2 years ago (1 child) Tor was created by the NRL, which is a part of the US Navy and Marine Corps. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago Meh, I heard wrong them sorry permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago Meh, I heard wrong them sorry permalink fedilink source parent
[–] psmgx@lemmy.world 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world -66 points 2 years ago (1 child) Please don't talk about child predators, and use the term "back door" in the same sentence. It ain't right.... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yoshisaur@lemm.ee 37 points 2 years ago we’re talking about encryption here, not…that. please get your mind out of the gutter permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yoshisaur@lemm.ee 37 points 2 years ago we’re talking about encryption here, not…that. please get your mind out of the gutter permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 years ago* (4 children) To be clear, it’s encrypted*. * If you enable it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Deello@lemm.ee 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Geth@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deello@lemm.ee 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 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 permalink fedilink source parent [–] uzay@infosec.pub 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It works well in Matrix, and you can restrict who joins on that platform. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] uzay@infosec.pub 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] datendefekt@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago AFAIK chat contents are stored unencrypted on the server. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 years ago* (4 children) To be clear, it’s encrypted*. * If you enable it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Deello@lemm.ee 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Geth@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deello@lemm.ee 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 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 permalink fedilink source parent [–] uzay@infosec.pub 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It works well in Matrix, and you can restrict who joins on that platform. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] uzay@infosec.pub 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] datendefekt@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago AFAIK chat contents are stored unencrypted on the server. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Deello@lemm.ee 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Geth@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deello@lemm.ee 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Geth@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deello@lemm.ee 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Deello@lemm.ee 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] uzay@infosec.pub 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It works well in Matrix, and you can restrict who joins on that platform. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] uzay@infosec.pub 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It works well in Matrix, and you can restrict who joins on that platform. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] uzay@infosec.pub 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] uzay@infosec.pub 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] datendefekt@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago AFAIK chat contents are stored unencrypted on the server. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sneptaur@pawb.social 4 points 2 years ago They got it by running a honeypot exit node like they always do permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] brezel@piefed.social 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) my guess is that a large number of tor exit nodes is run by government agencies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] orcrist@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Wildly_Utilize@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago .onions: am i a joke to you? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] orcrist@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Wildly_Utilize@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago .onions: am i a joke to you? permalink fedilink source parent