Wladimir PalantMar 14
Frederik Braun �

This is just to say that Meta/Instagram are wrong in deprecating encrypted direct messages. This change is setting a dangerous precedent. DMs need to be private (and therefore encrypted).

We should not let them get away with it, otherwise more apps and platforms will follow.

Mar 14 at 2:13pmWeb
Show threada1Mar 14
@freddy Don't.use.Zuckermusks.rat.shit.
Show threadWladimir PalantMar 14

@ar1 That’s beyond the point here. Even if you don’t use it, it has impact.

@freddy

Show threada1Mar 14
@WPalant @freddy not on me and anyone following my advice. The more, the merrier.
Show threadLukeMar 14
@ar1 @WPalant @freddy did you miss the "otherwise more apps and platforms will follow." You don't use meta apps, great good for you, but it's still a dangerous move.
Show threadFrederik Braun �Mar 14
@Lukew @ar1 @WPalant yeah. My point is that this will have effects and we need to call the eagerly complying platforms out. Whatever reason they give, this move is about mass surveillance and government control. (I don’t use their apps or platforms)
Show threadFrederik Braun �Mar 14
@Lukew @ar1 @WPalant this pseudo-individualistic "not on me" sentiment will allow them to continue until encryption is considered an incriminating circumstance. When encryption is only "just working fine for me personally", then it’s not doing the job for society it ought to do
Show threada1Mar 14
@freddy @Lukew @WPalant again once more: society should abstain from patronizing the platform of fascists, pedophiles, criminals. Maybe it has escaped you, that your data in the Meta or X universe was **never** private, and never will be. You can criticize the lipstick of the pig as long as you wish, but it's still a pig, even if the lipstick is to your liking. Also, you can do society a favor by not patronizing the platforms of the repugnant Epstein class.
Show threadWladimir PalantMar 14
@ar1 @freddy @Lukew
Show threada1Mar 14
@WPalant @freddy @Lukew I have been a member of the infosec community for a long time. I like it when discussions on data-security are based on facts, analysis and proof. I gave you reasons, facts and you may throw "Cambridge Ananlytica" on you preferred search engine, and maybe you'll find out I am not completely misguided in saying that X and meta do not treat data in a way a security professional should accept it.
Show threada1Mar 14
Other than participating in society, there you have a choice. No one in my fam is selling their privacy on X or fb. If they can do it, you can too. With this final statement, I consider that case closed for me. Have a nice rest of your life and learn to reason.
Show threadWladimir PalantMar 14

@ar1 I am pretty certain that nobody participating in this thread needs to search for information on Cambridge Analytica. I am also pretty certain that everybody involved in this thread is very much aware of the shortcomings of Meta and X. For example, I’ve posted this only a few days ago: https://infosec.exchange/@WPalant/116176375511107178

This is not the point of this discussion, you are preaching to the choir. Regardless of all the issues, normalization of end-to-end encryption has benefits that go far beyond the Meta/X ecosystem. Similarly, their de-normalization will have ripple effects that will affect the knowledgeable Signal user as well. Everybody migrating away from these fascists platforms will not happen tomorrow, so anything we can do to alleviate their impact on our society is a benefit.

@freddy @Lukew

Wladimir Palant (@[email protected])

A few days ago I’ve been asked about Meta’s privacy policy. I’ve summed it up with: “All your data is private unless we can make money from it. And we are very good at finding ways to profit from just about anything.” So: no, not surprising. If anything, it’s sad that there are still people who expect Meta to respect their privacy.

Infosec Exchange
Show threada1Mar 14
@WPalant @freddy @Lukew Consequently, it is clear to you, that meta platforms are already using mitm to allow "legal" interception and potentially feed sensitive data into the all-seeing eye of Sauron (Palantir). WA seems to be open to LEA on request and hence the idea that some form of easy to remove encryption is better than none, is window-dressing.
Show threada1Mar 14
Better that anyone and everyone *knows* their DM are open to the prying eyes of the predator class than some illusion of security where there isn't any from the get go. It's security theater to insist on "encryption" that can be taken away anytime - hence my pig & lipstick comment.