All questions are in bold for ease of use.

The major carriers in the United States participate in NSA surveillance (except for T-Mobile apparently, because it’s based outside of the US. Except they bought Sprint, which participates.) and that, along with other major privacy issues, means that the market for private carriers is incredibly slim. When I found out that some carriers, such as Mint Mobile, piggyback off of Verizon, I wondered: What’s stopping a carrier from simply E2EE everything from Verizon, and then using Verizon to transfer the data? Obviously, the encrypted data could still be collected and sold, but it wouldn’t matter if the encryption was setup properly, right? I’m looking to better understand how this works, and, if a solution exists, potentially be the first to make it happen. The reason I’m not suggesting creating a carrier without piggybacking is due to the sheer cost and lack of support it would have, which would lead to poor adoption. Also, if carriers simply don’t support E2EE, couldn’t carrier locked phones install the software (since most install software anyways) required to make E2EE work?

  • Zak@lemmy.world
    84·
    8 months ago

    You seem to be asking for telephone calls and SMS messages to be end-to-end encrypted. The underlying technologies were not designed with encryption in mind, so the only way for it to work would be for all the participants in a conversation to use an additional software layer. That was the method used by TextSecure.

    The authors of TextSecure eventually figured out that a purpose-built Internet-based messaging protocol would be a better transport layer for secure messaging. If you’re interested enough in secure messaging to be asking this question, you may be familiar with TextSecure’s successor.

    As for why a carrier wouldn’t do this, I’ll ask the inverse: why would they put in the effort when anyone who cares about secure communication just uses an encrypted messaging app?

    • just_another_person@lemmy.world
      238·
      8 months ago

      This is the right lead, but also OP asking the question doesn’t seem to understand encryption in general, or PFS. We’re all running on a decades old system now. Just move to something more modern like the Signal protocol if you’re so freaked out about who is listening to your shit.

      I swear, this thread just invites so many militia psychos and preppers…

    • Imprint9816@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      4·
      8 months ago

      Id put it this way. Until lack of encryption is an issue for carriers and not a source of revenue, there wont be an incentive.

    • The 8232 Project@lemmy.mlOP
      44·
      8 months ago

      Why would they put in the effort when anyone who cares about secure communication just uses an encrypted messaging app?

      Because not all traffic sent through cellular is messaging. People visit websites and whatnot when they’re out-and-about. Not to mention that not everyone uses secure messaging apps.

      P.S. I am very aware of Signal, thanks!

      • Zak@lemmy.world
        15·
        8 months ago

        Browsing most websites is E2EE. When it’s not, that isn’t something a phone carrier or ISP can fix because they don’t control the web server. The traffic will be in the clear between the ISP and the server.

        For secure messaging without a third-party app, phone carriers in the USA seem to be pretty onboard with Google RCS, though I think I’d recommend anyone who’s serious about security use Signal instead.