Google Accused of Showing 'Total Contempt' for Android Users' Privacy (bleepingcomputer.com)

On the heels of a terse privacy debate, Google may have found another thing to worry about: its attempt to rethink the traditional texting system. From a report: Joe Westby is Amnesty International's Technology and Human Rights researcher. Recently, in response to Google's launch of a new messaging service called "Chat", Westby argued that Google, "shows total contempt for Android users' privacy."

"With its baffling decision to launch a messaging service without end-to-end encryption, Google has shown utter contempt for the privacy of Android users and handed a precious gift to cybercriminals and government spies alike, allowing them easy access to the content of Android users' communications. Following the revelations by CIA whistleblower Edward Snowden, end-to-end encryption has become recognized as an essential safeguard for protecting people's privacy when using messaging apps. With this new Chat service, Google shows a staggering failure to respect the human rights of its customers," Westby contended. Westby continued, saying: "In the wake of the recent Facebook data scandal, Google's decision is not only dangerous but also out of step with current attitudes to data privacy."

Comments

Except that it's a protocol, not a server

[Jason69]

Google "Chat" is a protocol much like "SMS". It's not a service in and of itself but the underlying carriage for services to ride on top. Those services should absolutely include encryption but that is not the protocol's job to handle. "Joe Westby is Amnesty International's Technology and Human Rights researcher" Sounds like this research should do a little more research.

Re:Except that it's a protocol, not a server

[Anubis IV]

Google "Chat" is a protocol much like "SMS". It's not a service in and of itself but the underlying carriage for services to ride on top. Those services should absolutely include encryption but that is not the protocol's job to handle.

Actually, it is, because end-to-end encryption cannot feasibly exist* unless a key exchange mechanism is defined by the protocol. Moreover, it's clear that you're thoroughly confused both about what end-to-end encryption actually means and what Chat actually is.

Encrypting each link in the chain—which is what you're talking about when you suggest it's a server's/service's job to handle encryption—is not the same thing as end-to-end encryption. End-to-end encryption means that only the sender and the recipient are privy to the messages: not the server, not a service, not anyone else in the chain. For that to happen, the message that you're sending has to be encrypted on your device in a way that only your recipient's device can decrypt. For all of that to work, you need a key exchange mechanism baked into the protocol in some way, since otherwise your device would have no idea what keys to use. The individual links along the chain may additionally be encrypted, but even if they weren't the message would still be end-to-end encrypted.

At this point, end-to-end encryption is simply table stakes for anyone joining the chat game. Anyone trying to enter the field with a chat system that doesn't offer end-to-end encryption is declaring their intent to scan every single one of your private messages for profit.

As for your protestation that it's a protocol not a service, it actually is a service, in the same way that SMS is both a protocol and a service. Chat supports richer content and a few other niceties that put it above SMS, but it clings to almost all of SMS's flaws, in that it isn't end-to-end encrypted, it's dependent on carrier support, and it's been superseded by far superior products from other companies (e.g. iMessages, WhatsApp, etc.).

*Okay, technically it can, but what must necessarily happen when using those protocols is that people have to share their public keys with each other in some other manner, such as a real life exchange or a trusted, third-party service, at which point those practices become de facto aspects of the protocol as a result of their necessity. Moreover, no protocol of that sort is suitable for use by the general population, hence why those sorts of protocols are relegated to users who are willing to sacrifice any notion of convenience in the interest of achieving the best security.

It's not a Google thing, though.

[shess]

While Google is putting support behind RCS, it's not a Google thing, it's an industry-standard evolution of SMS. Google really should do better and offer end-to-end encryption, but that would only work in their walled garden, and they would still have to interoperate with everyone outside of that garden, who they have no control over.

There is one superfluous word in the headline

[Dirk Becher]

Guess which one it is. Hint: It tangentially has to do with robots.

Re:End to end isn't the Google way

[dns4599]

You know allo exists? By default it does not use end to end encryption but you can enable it if you want to.