• 0xtero@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    It’s great as long as you can guarantee that the person you’re communicating on the receiving side does the same. Otherwise it’s useless as your messages will be read on the receiving device. In practice it will make private communication extremely cumbersome and niche.

    Also, the authorities can backdoor your custom ROM device at will, when seized.

    • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Steganography. There’s more than one way to protect your communication.

      And encryption in transit is better than no encryption at all (assuming the baddies don’t already have full access to your phone data).

      • 0xtero@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        assuming the baddies don’t already have full access to your phone data

        That’s the whole point of Chat Control 2.0

        • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Not quite; Chat Control hearkens back to Apple’s doomed attempt at on-device CSAM filtering - the idea is that on-device images and message contents would be scanned for known hashes. This means a nation state could go fishing on devices for known content, but it wouldn’t allow them to indiscriminately sift through all the content at rest — they’d have to know what they were looking for.

          That’s where the steganography comes in, because the hash based approach will fail if the content they’re looking for is obscured in some manner.