SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Facebook wants to have its cake and eat it too.
Mark Zuckerberg recently announced Facebook's A Privacy-Focused Vision for Social Networking. One thing missing from the announcement was any change to his current business model. Zuckerberg is using the calls for privacy-centric products to exclude others from entering that market while maintaining Facebook's highly profitable business of arbitraging between how much privacy Facebook's 2 billion users think they are giving up and how much he has been able to sell to advertisers.
This article examines the different players in the world of interpersonal communications and social media: whether communications are 1-1 or 1-many, whether they are permanent or ephemeral, and how private or public they are.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08 2019, @06:45AM (5 children)
End to end encryption means nothing when one of the ends is facebook. It doesn't change anything at all. They still see everything you do and collect everything they can. The only difference is that now it's encrypted (which a. isn't qualified and b. makes you wonder why this wasn't the case to begin with) and potentially hidden from your eyes (but not deleted from their servers) after a period of time.
This initiative is void of any meaning. It just throws around the term "encryption" in the hope that the "dumb fucks" won't ask any further questions...
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08 2019, @10:57AM (2 children)
Another poster who didn't bother to read the article. Soylent really living up to its reputation of all snark and no expertise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08 2019, @11:13AM
How does GP not address the article? It speaks directly to the following from the article:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @12:30AM
Your comment is all snark and no substance.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday March 08 2019, @05:09PM (1 child)
Well, the article *claimed* that even Facebook wouldn't be able to break the encryption, but you can believe that as much as you want to. There's no proof, no design specs, and you can't check the code...not even the spec'd code, much less the code used to implement the process.
So, given their history, I think that one would indeed be foolish to trust them. They've got to offer actual proof before I'll believe them.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08 2019, @06:28PM
They wouldn't need to "break" it since they are one of the ends, it's specifically encrypted for them, they have the key.
I also can't "break" any of the https traffic between a server and my browser, but I don't need to: I can just decrypt it because I have the key.
Word choice matters here...