On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 03:52:57PM -0200, Daniel Arnaudo wrote:
> Also anyone using Yahoo Mail on this thread might want to reconsider if
> they're concerned with privacy.
The same can be said of AOL, Hotmail/Outlook, and Gmail. (Even though
I think very highly of Google's security people.) The
This Ars Technica piece has some longer discussion of the pros and cons,
and the perspective of different security researchers. Seems like it is a
topic that has needed to be addressed for awhile regarding WhatsApp.
Ultimately, if you do use WhatsApp and are concerned about security, turned
on the
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 11:40:13AM -0500, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> So I think the operational question is not "are they present?" --
> the question is "what do they have access to?"
Consider also the blackmailing power of XKEYSCORE.
More or less anyone in any major corporation can be
blackmailed to
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 08:47:51AM -0600, Andr??s Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes
wrote:
> Anybody serious about decryption cannot use standard social networks,
> which are predicated on access to private data for marketing and
> "development" (eg, as test data for new features, debugging, etc)
>
Very interesting, rsk & FL.
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 08:47:51AM -0600, Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes
wrote:
> Anybody serious about decryption cannot use standard social networks,
Decryption? You mean encryption? Indeed most users of
technology aren't serious about encryption. Not even
the
Thanks, FL, for your succinct description.
Anybody serious about decryption cannot use standard social networks,
which are predicated on access to private data for marketing and
"development" (eg, as test data for new features, debugging, etc)
purposes, and naturally open to government intrusion
First of all I thank Carlo and Cristina for welcoming me. I was afraid that as
a man who studied law rather than computer science I wouldn’t fit in here so
well. :-)
I’ll clarify right from the beginning though that neither I live in the US nor
I work on the privacy field. I’m just a geek (not
Who owns WhatsApp? Facebook.
What is the purpose of Facebook? Surveillance and data acquisition.
They've spent billions building the infrastructure for it. They have
expanded the nature and scope of it at every possible opportunity.
They have been caught -- over and over and over again --
On 2017-01-14 13:41, Thomas Delrue wrote:
> On 01/14/2017 08:17 AM, FL wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure that every American company, by law, must implement a backdoor,
>> as you imply. The last time I checked, iMessage was a very secure platform
>> with no known vulnerabilities -- which in fact has
On 01/14/2017 08:17 AM, FL wrote:
> I'm not sure that every American company, by law, must implement a backdoor,
> as you imply. The last time I checked, iMessage was a very secure platform
> with no known vulnerabilities — which in fact has made Apple struggle with US
> agencies more than a
blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px
#715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white
!important; } Last time I heard the us govt failed to force Apple to break an
iPhone. They had to reform to independent contractor
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:48:48AM -0300, FL wrote:
> Sadly I'm not a hacker — I'm a lawyer, so I haven't checked their code nor
> any other company's for that matter.
We have plenty of hackers but not enough lawyers, so your
view on what the laws currently actually imply is very welcome.
>
Sadly I'm not a hacker — I'm a lawyer, so I haven't checked their code nor any
other company's for that matter.
However, my main point remains unaddressed — I'm not sure that American
companies are 'required by law' to implement backdoors. And the fact that I
check the news instead of a
Thx, efecto
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:17:07AM -0300, FL wrote:
> I'm not sure that every American company, by law, must implement a backdoor,
> as you imply. The last time I checked, iMessage was a very secure platform
> with no known vulnerabilities — which in fact has made Apple struggle
On 14/01/17 10:02, carlo von lynX wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 07:26:29PM -0500, Sebastian Benthall wrote:
>> https://whispersystems.org/blog/there-is-no-whatsapp-backdoor/
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/13/
> I've also read
>
I'm not sure that every American company, by law, must implement a backdoor, as
you imply. The last time I checked, iMessage was a very secure platform with no
known vulnerabilities — which in fact has made Apple struggle with US agencies
more than a few times.
FL
> On 14-01-2017, at 10:02,
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 07:26:29PM -0500, Sebastian Benthall wrote:
> https://whispersystems.org/blog/there-is-no-whatsapp-backdoor/
> > > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/13/
I've also read
So I guess we can go back to what we were talking about a few days ago. You
know, "fake news".
FL
> On 13-01-2017, at 21:26, Sebastian Benthall wrote:
>
> https://whispersystems.org/blog/there-is-no-whatsapp-backdoor/
>
>> On Jan 13, 2017 9:14 AM, "Rich Kulawiec"
It is long *past* time for everyone involved in the kinds of activities
discussed here to completely and permanently excise Facebook's
services/products from their computing environment. No excuses.
---rsk
- Forwarded message from Richard Forno -
> To:
19 matches
Mail list logo