Granted, the part
The globally recommended app by privacy and security experts, Signal, is now being downloaded massively and tops the Danish Google Play Store
is a little ironic, but you gotta push this winning tide and then work from that.
Granted, the part
The globally recommended app by privacy and security experts, Signal, is now being downloaded massively and tops the Danish Google Play Store
is a little ironic, but you gotta push this winning tide and then work from that.
You can’t really make e2ee messaging illegal, at least it is impossible to enforce with decentralized open-source messengers.
It is much more likely that the US will mess with Signal, than that you will stop being able to use an e2ee messenger like XMPP, which is just as secure as Signal regarding the e2e encryption.
The issue is that it’s already pretty hard to convince people to use something easy like Signal, most people just don’t care enough for something “complicated” like XMPP-based messengers, especially if mainstream app stores had to stop letting EU-based users install messengers with these features.
Well, yes. But when it comes to digital independence Signal isn’t better than WhatsApp. At least recommend something like Threema if you think the much better alternatives are too hard.
Except Meta fully owns the WhatsApp metadata, and frankly Signal is a lot more trustworthy about its e2e implementation being actually, in practice, secure.
All you need is a central registry where licensed messengers register their e2ee connections. Then network providers only have to report all ip addresses with connections that are not on that list.
Impossible with VPNs, but politicians have already announced their desire to make them illegal.
What? You are not making much sense. What is a “e2ee connection”?
An encrypted connection between two endpoints.That’s required for “decentralized open-source messengers”.
Currently it’s impossible to prevent because of all the encrypted video calls of the Meta messengers and similar connections between endpoints.
If those video streams are marked then it is known which endpoints use software that evades surveillance.
I am not sure you understand what you are talking about. There is no easy way to distingish between different connections and pretty much all internet traffic is encrypted these days.
My argument is that a central registry, where all controlled software registers their connections, is all that is needed to identify the connections that are outside the control of the surveillance state.
How would you register all connections of the internet?
Only e2e connections have to be registered.
If every human has 10 e2e connections per hour, that’s 80G connections. If that requires 10k bytes for communication that would be 800T bytes per hour, 250G byte per second. That should be possible.
Use the routers of the exchange points to track the connections. Let them report any connection that hasn’t received a validation from the registry.
Again, what is a “e2e connection”? There is no such thing and it is nearly impossible to distingish a e2e encrypted data stream inside a TLS connection from regular TLS encrypted connection.