Backdoors for 'good guys' don't existβthis is a shortcut to mass exploitation.
πΎ
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2025
823 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
63455 readers
4921 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
But they're not the good guys either
Correction. The worst surveillance law in the EU so far
Ah yes, for the upcoming Ministry of Love.
France is a police state in which citizens are all suspects. Cryptography was illegal until 1996 outside of government/military use and it's one of the worst countries for any hobbyist who needs to use radio frequencies, fly stuff around or even mere street photography. This law will make it easier for the government to crackdown on anyone using encrypted messaging as a pretext to arrest them or put them under surveillance.
Note that the current interior minister and his predecessor both are vile fascist scum.
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say"
Snowden
And the things that are perfectly okay today might be the things you want to hide tomorrow. Abortions and pregnancies, thoughts about labor rights or climate, sexual orientation, ...
As an American, I can vouch for this.
I expect many people might read this and think "yep, fair enough, I have nothing to hide and nothing to say" and still not understand why either privacy or free speech are valuable.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The eventual outcome of this sort of thing is more widespread use of steganographic data storage schemes. We already have plenty, such as ones that make your data look like unused LTS blocks of garbage and code blocks with multiple hidden partitions, so that you can open one block showing pedestrian data and the court unable to prove there are other hidden blocks.
These are technologies that already exist for those people who are really interested preserving their renegade data.
But if I own a business and I don't want my rivals reading my accounting, and open crypto is illegal, I may go stegan whether or not I have secret slush funds.
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with access to my private phone data is a good guy with access to my private phone data. /s
Fuck me, thatβs good
Iβm stealing that
In the same vein, with my family I've been using the analogy of "Imagine that all law enforcement had a key to your home, and they could enter at any time and look through your things, but you wouldn't even know it if they did, or if they took photos or recorded videos of your place to take with them. Their argument is that the only way to keep you and your stuff safe from the bad guys is for the good guys to have access. But because the good guys now have access, it's also easier for the bad guys to get in, because now there's all these extra keys to your home out there, which might fall into the hands of the bad guys."
Not a perfect analogy, but it seems to make them consider the issue from a more personal angle. And for those that argue, "Well, I don't have anything to hide.", I usually counter with "Then why do you close your curtains/blinds when you change your clothes or get out of the shower?" With my dad who grew up during the World War II, it also helped to mention that a law like this, once on the books, will not be easy to overturn, and while he might be fine with our current regime having access to all his data, that might not be the case with future authorities.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
TSA officers steal from passengers
This may seem unrelated but it gives a real life physical example on exactly why backdoors shouldn't exist.
First off, fuck the NY post.
Secondly, no, it IS unrelated. An issue with the TSA is not an example of a backdoor. Both are bad things, but it ends there.
A law implementing a back door would be a far more ubiquitous concern than some one off sticky fingers in Florida.
Did the tsa use a backdoor to find out what people had in order to steal it? No. How tf is this dumb take supported.
The little red locks on luggage have a backdoor for the TSA, so yes, they literally used a backdoor to find out what people had and steal it. The reason I brought it up is because people sometimes have a hard time realizing the severity of something unless it's grounded in the real physical world.
Also, chill the f out, man. Sheesh.
Red locks had nothing to do with that story. And they were caught and arrested. It is not related.
How do you think they open the bags?
You don't need a tsa approved lock to open an unlocked bag. Nor a bag that is locked in any other fashion. Which is why this is a contrived connection.
Do you unlock your bags before pushing them through the scanner? I only do it if they ask me to and that only happens directly in front of me. But sure, let's assume bags were fully unlocked and unattended, it's still a case of representatives of a government organization (aka the good guys) with full access to a backdoor showing that they're not to be trusted, which is the entire point I'm trying to make.
I don't lock them to begin with. And I certainly wouldn't purchase a tsa approved lock. Regardless, I was not subject to a law requiring that the non-tsa lock I was using to have a backdoor added. Which is why this is a bad comparison all around.
You are subject to a law requiring the lock you use to have a TSA backdoor added if you travel anywhere the TSA has jurisdiction.
No. I'm not. I've never used that lock and I'm not required to.
Plus, the thieves in this case we're arrested. The French government would not be. This is a terrible comparison, even more so as we move along.
Yes, you are, you can look this up in like 12 seconds. The TSA as a whole was also not arrested. If a random worker in the French government uses the backdoor to spy on people and they're found out, I'm sure they'll be arrested. It really feels like you're just giving the analogy more strength with each comment.
You are not required to use a tsa lock. Take that 12 seconds.
Crickets.
It feels like the UK and France are in a competition to see who can steamroller their peoples' rights the fastest.
Isnβt Sweden trying something stupid too?
Yup, they are trying to put a backdoor into signal, even though their military advised against it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Although not in the same way, the US is leading the charge on that front.
load more comments
(3 replies)
The government is not your friend, we are ruled by power tripping authoritarian rulers. They are using security and defense as a pretext to abolish your rights. You can solve the narcotraffic problem by simply legalizing drugs, they are going after encryption for something else, they want to control everything and everyone.
Signal, Tuta, Proton. And that Apple bullshit.
This push to know everything about everyone is outrageous, expected, and depressing.
What happened with Signal?
Sweden wants a backdoor. I hope that idiocy is shot down fast.
Ah, I heard about that. I recognized Protonβs and Appleβs self-inflicted bullshit, so I was afraid that Signal might have done something stupid to themselves as well
load more comments
(5 replies)
A reminder that the people voting for these laws do not understand technology. They don't get it. Yes, this law sucks, but even if it passes, I'd be really surprised if it was actually enforceable.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next βΊ