Nothing in that article mentions anything about running custom silicon for securing their servers. It's simply a high-level spec sheet. So that doesn't actual answer the GPs question.
But Facebook is an honest company with no history of lying about things. It's not like their business is in data mining or anything. Also, they have no history of being a part of the government's mass surveillance apparatus./s
No, not at all. Fixing this specific behavior would be trivial to do. The fact that it's not being done so and you and others are trying to tell us to ignore it just trust that a data-mining company with a history of lying is absurd.
So then change this behavior and silence all the backdoor claims. That would seem to be less effort than all this spin doctoring and PR damage control. Sorry, the "promise" of a liar holds no merit.
There probably are. Either way, if they really wanted to shutdown this backdoor talk they should change this behavior. Otherwise the only thing we have to go by is a non-binding "promise" from a known liar.
Considering how much spin doctoring is going on, the safer bet is that Facebook already is working on or already has completed the work to exploit this for eavesdropping.
Why should we believe Facebook won't invest the time in being able to exploit this for eavesdropping? They already lied to regulators about not sharing data between itself and WhatsApp. It sounds extraordinarily naive to think they won't try that use this as a backdoor.
Exactly. They already lied about data sharing when buying WhatsApp in the first place. So why should anyone believe they wouldn't invest in the effort to exploit this hole. Are people still really so naive.?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe at the First National Bank of Podunk. My bank is only regional and yet I don't have the waits you claim.
No it's not. It's just listed as an obscure fee in your account contract that most will never read.
Cool story, brah. Care to tell us more boring things about your life?
But he didn't know about this. Below he admits he was basically just trolling
So then you admit to just trolling. The "news" of this is Google providing specific details about stuff they previously had not disclosed.
A swing and a miss.
Again, does not actually address what is mentioned in this submission. Want to try again?
I did Google it but the source information is from only a 4-day-old Google blog story.
https://cloud.google.com/secur...
So it seems your claims of this information bein published before in numerous tech posts and books was bullshit.
Translation: I'm just talking out of my ass.
Nothing in that article mentions anything about running custom silicon for securing their servers. It's simply a high-level spec sheet. So that doesn't actual answer the GPs question.
Cite*. Goddamn phone dictation.
And yet you fail to side even a single link or book.
This just in: Company employees will know things people outside the company don't. Film at 11!
And if you want a real-world example as a scenario it would be here: https://forums.unrealircd.org/...
What does TLS have to do with code signing?
"Small government!" "Local control!"
But... APPS!!
But Facebook is an honest company with no history of lying about things. It's not like their business is in data mining or anything. Also, they have no history of being a part of the government's mass surveillance apparatus. /s
No, not at all. Fixing this specific behavior would be trivial to do. The fact that it's not being done so and you and others are trying to tell us to ignore it just trust that a data-mining company with a history of lying is absurd.
So your comeback is that corporations would only write super-secure backdoors? That's a joke, right?
So then change this behavior and silence all the backdoor claims. That would seem to be less effort than all this spin doctoring and PR damage control. Sorry, the "promise" of a liar holds no merit.
There probably are. Either way, if they really wanted to shutdown this backdoor talk they should change this behavior. Otherwise the only thing we have to go by is a non-binding "promise" from a known liar.
Considering how much spin doctoring is going on, the safer bet is that Facebook already is working on or already has completed the work to exploit this for eavesdropping.
Why should we believe Facebook won't invest the time in being able to exploit this for eavesdropping? They already lied to regulators about not sharing data between itself and WhatsApp. It sounds extraordinarily naive to think they won't try that use this as a backdoor.
Exactly. They already lied about data sharing when buying WhatsApp in the first place. So why should anyone believe they wouldn't invest in the effort to exploit this hole. Are people still really so naive.?