• Dima
    link
    fedilink
    211 year ago

    Lemmy is becoming more sus by the day

    • @PolandIsAStateOfMind
      cake
      link
      19
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Even though there is like 20 users there. This is what you always get for not purging libs. Idk how some people still don’t get it after many many proof from reddit.

      And on lemmy even the most obvious bootlicker trolls get only few days ban and can avoid it at all by not being overly rude.

      • @Shrike502
        link
        111 year ago

        Preemptive CIA infiltration?

        • @PolandIsAStateOfMind
          cake
          link
          171 year ago

          I don’t think yet, they look like genuine unpaid bootlickers, most of them are of westolefto variety.

        • Muad'DibberMA
          link
          151 year ago

          Nah, just ppl who want to recreate all Reddits individualism, but in open source.

  • Water Bowl Slime
    link
    141 year ago

    There is no legislative power which can be used to require telecommunication or online service providers to facilitate the decryption of encrypted communications. However, all telecommunications carriers are required to ensure that their equipment, facilities or services that provide a customer or subscriber with the ability to originate, terminate or direct communications have certain capabilities which includes interception of communications and delivering intercepted communications to the government, where the government obtains a court order or there is some other lawful authorisation.

    How does that give the US a “minimal restrictions” rating? They’re straight up saying that everything must have the ability to be decrypted & sent to the government. And unless I’m dense they’re also contradicting themselves by saying there’s no legislative power, but also the government can just issue a court order.

    Source

    • @knfrmity
      link
      101 year ago

      If you accept the conceit that the US has three branches of government, a court order and a law are very different things. So even if legislative powers cannot be used for congress to do a thing, the courts may indeed be able to do the same thing via court order.

      Another fun fact about encryption in the US is that the government doesn’t want its use and proliferation at all. When computerized encryption became a thing and could be used to protect information on the internet, the US tried to classify it as a technology with national security implications. A person or company would have needed permission from congress to sell products using encryption to foreign customers. Sharing the technology outright would have been illegal in most cases, and with serious consequences.

      The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) along with the NSA has also always tried to define the US wide and essentially western world wide encryption standards. At least initially this meant there were some really serious insecurities in the encryption protocols which the public could see, but they weren’t dealt with because the NSA needed their back door. I wouldn’t assume anything has changed in the last 25 years except for maybe the subtlety and sophistication of how the NSA implements backdoors into the NIST approved encryption algorithms.

      • Water Bowl Slime
        link
        101 year ago

        I suppose that reasoning would make sense… if this website didn’t give other countries a yellow or red rating for doing the same thing. The coloring of the whole map seems really arbitrary if you compare the descriptions given.

        Agree with you about the NSA backdoors thing though. I see no reason why they would have had a change of heart either.

    • Preston Maness ☭
      link
      51 year ago

      Two points:

      1. There is a legal and (less so now than when the laws were originally written) practical distinction between telecommunications providers and online services. Telecom transports the messages, services create them. I suspect that they’re trying to say that there is no current legal precedent forcing online services to help the government decrypt communications. The gold standard here is end-to-end encryption, which is enabled by services at the endpoints of communication, Signal being the most popular. Currently (theoretically) the government cannot compel Signal to, say, push compromised versions of its software to targeted users that allows for surreptitious eavesdropping on messages that the user believes are end-to-end encrypted.
      2. Telecom companies, on the other hand, are required to let the government scoop up all of their traffic for analysis. In theory, all the government sees is encrypted garbage, at least for end-to-end encrypted communications. And some of the internal NSA documents from the Snowden leaks corroborate this at least. The NSA does not seem to have made any groundbreaking advancements in cryptanalysis that enable them to read whatever they want. However, other internal documents from those same leaks make it clear that the NSA is not completely powerless to decrypt these communications. Rather, they have to engage in TAO – Tailored Access Operations – that attack one or both endpoints of the desired end-to-end encrypted communication. It’s more expensive, difficult, and manual, but still possible.
    • @Shrike502
      link
      31 year ago

      There is no legislative power which can be used to require telecommunication or online service providers to facilitate the decryption of encrypted communications

      As the joke goes, “voluntarily and with a song”

        • @Shrike502
          link
          71 year ago

          It’s an anti-soviet joke, which predictably works better for capitalism:

          An international competition for cat trainers is held. The finalists are a German, a USian and a Soviet trainer. The final challenge is to make a cat lick it’s butt.

          The German trainer starts by bellowing orders at the cat, which only serves to scare and agitate it. The USian trainer follows by trying to bribe the cat with treats and toys. The cat just ignores him.

          Finally, the Soviet trainer comes on stage. He proclaims: “In our country, nobody is forced to do things they don’t wish to, whether by loud orders and violence, nor my bribery and lies. If something must be done, it is done voluntarily and with a song!”

          With that he pulls out a jar of mustard and slaps a spoonful on the cat’s rear. MEEEEEOW! Goes the cat and starts licking.

          TL;DR: the corporations don’t need to be openly demanded to do things. They just conveniently do what is expected of them. Perfectly voluntarily, of course.