532
submitted 3 months ago by minnix@lemux.minnix.dev to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

Thank you. I'm going to restate your explanation to be sure I've got it:

  • authorities want platforms to comply with legal requests
  • when Signal gets a subpoena, they open the key locker and show that it's empty. They provide the metadata they can (sign up date and last seen date, full stop) and tell authorities they can't do better.
  • when Telegram gets a subpoena, they open the key locker and show all the keys, then slam it shut in the face of the investigator, telling them to get bent.
  • conclusion: it's easier to never have the keys in the first place than to tease the government with them
[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

It's easier, but Telegram's authors are from Russia. They psychologically can't accept that "never have the keys" thing. They want to have control and they want to be able to tell "yes" to the investigator, possibly for something in return.

this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
532 points (95.9% liked)

Privacy

32159 readers
280 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS