this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
171 points (95.2% liked)
Technology
59467 readers
4342 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
None of this is my opinion, it's just how the world works LOL
Not necessarily, but kinda. The gov typically need some sort of warrant, and they need approval from the country they're requesting it from. (I don't know all the legal terms here). The provider can contest it. Look at the disclosures of your favorite international tech company, most of them make this information public (except when the gov specifically tells them they can't until they change their mind later).
Here's one from Proton
Can you elaborate?
Which Government?
Pardon my ignorance as this is my first time using the internet, but I am pretty sure that every Government on the planet does not use a universal set of laws or procedures for enforcement.
I just did.
I already answered this one as well.
No but they all certainly have some sort of system for requesting access to information.
So in your world, journalists and activists trying to bring attention to human rights violations their country's fascist government is committing in an attempt to bring in good change should be just fucked over right?
Because those governments label those people as "criminals" when they're objectively not.
I'll refer you to my previous comment:
Notice at no time did I use the words "should" or "should not". We're just discussing facts here.
I love how you get downvoted by people who live in some sort of fictitious world. Kind of like the sovereign citizen nonsense.
This may be of some use to you.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elaborate
United States of America? Canada? North Korea? China? Australia? Saudi Arabia? South Africa? Brazil?
The point is the app was designed for secure communication, specifically from corrupt governments, which is why it is problematic to allow access to user data as long as the individual is breaking a law in that country.
Or to use the example from the top:
Can you elaborate on what you're asking me to elaborate on, because I honestly don't know beyond what I've already told you.
Yes. Any of these could potentially be "the country they're requesting it from".
If you think that's true, you are sorely mistaken. It may be how it is advertised, but it is not how it was designed. If it were designed that way, as many many different chat apps are, they would have no information to give up to a subpoena. AKA the "zero knowledge" encryption that was mentioned previously.
I agree. For the third time, this is not my opinion, this is just how the world works.
Or to use my answer from the top: