Unless explicitly stated, all content posted by this user, is done so under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 DEED (non-AI).
Theoretically, yes. But if it’s a legal entity that added it, they can easily circumvent any attempt to eradicate it. Or, in a more extreme way, criminalize FOSS chat apps altogether, then the code will have to be analyzed in a RE environment. Maybe the non FOSS server code is where the backdoor is added. There are so many relatively hidden ways to compromise a chat app’s supply chain.
Honestly, neither will I. No one should.
While I do love your optimism and appreciate the addition of this software to our (collective) arsenal, it absolutely can. Chat Control can force the developers to add back doors, for example, or to start log collection to include IPs and PSPs, etc. Please don’t misunderstand, I’m not negating the benefits of Amnesichat at all. It’s awesome. But, being a chat, it would still fall under the same regulatory nonsense as Briar, for example, which can also be run through Tor. Now, whether the developers adhere to Chat Control regulations, is another thing altogether.
Or Briar. Or Signal. Or so many others that have been audited throughput the years. While I appreciate the addition of Amnesichat to this arsenal, it has yet to be properly audited and is, therefore, not yet trusted.
Chat Control, if passed, will affect this chat as well. The only way to bypass it, would be chat revolution.
Very cool. Thanks for sharing!
That’s a fair point.
I mean… the government already has all your information. If you distrust them with your information, you have an odd problem to overcome. The corpos, however, shouldn’t have all this data on you.
It depends how it’s implemented. If they implement correctly, then you’re right. But not all do. That’s a fact that bit me in the arse once, and I no longer use those features for lack of trust.
If truly masked, it might be fine. But the site has to gather that data in order to append it to the API call and it, therefore, mean that they could keep it (even of they actually may not). There are ways around it, such as with session tokens passed between the social media’s page and the bank’s official API page. But, knowing fb, they won’t use the latter.
That’s a good question. I’m not sure. Well, guess I’m firing up the Wireshark.
Right. But Facebook shouldn’t have that number.
Interesting. I wonder if that’s an iOS requirement that Teams is forced into. Somehow, I doubt it.
You jest, but this may actually be an effective argument with the tech incompetent execs. Hopefully the FTC is more competent, but, somehow, I doubt it.
Edit, Autocorrect
On what device? I have Nearby Devices and Location disallowed on Android, and it still works fine.
Side note. Teams is the worst. Just, period.
So you need a BankID to open an account on the covered platforms? That seems like a privacy nightmare.
And the video chats were choppy and black and white and with delayed audio. Those were the days…
I agree with you. I just think “they” will take that fact and just sit with it. I think “they” will do everything they can to get multiple backdoors in there (and I use the term ‘backdoor’ loosely to mean anything that can programmatically circumvent the encryption). There are more of them, in terms of power and funding, than there are of us. They will eventually succeed, if only for short times each interval. That’s why I wrote that the solution is a chat revolution. I don’t know what that will look like, but we need something they can’t successfully attack.