Fascinating read on how the FBI ran Anom encrypted phone company. In particular:
“We wanted to shatter the trust in the encrypted phone industry that catered to criminals.”
The question remaining is: how can we as non-criminals still trust encrypted messengers?
And with Signal making rather questionable crypto decisions lately, how do we know who is currently pulling the strings there?
@WPalant FWIW, Mudge continuing to work there is a decent canary. It's not that he wouldn't work with feds, but he would absolutely walk before agreeing to knowingly weaken something to make anyone other than users' lives easier
Of course he could still be duped and make mistakes, but he has a solid history of giving the finger to anyone trying to pull his strings
@xerz That’s what I thought as well. Then again, they didn’t know that they were working for a honeypot company. They thought that they were doing real crime. 🤷♂️
I wonder however: how do the people who did know the scheme go free of charges? Investigation or not, they willingly facilitated crimes. How far could they go without being charged with anything?
@WPalant In regards to that, I just assumed they get absolved in advance since it was for the intent of revealing crime, but ethically it sounds pretty off
@xerz I remember that undercover agents need to commit crime without being charged with criminal offenses. Otherwise it would be trivial to blow their cover: anyone unwilling to commit a crime is an agent. So there must be some law covering this, and it probably applies here as well…
A Mastodon instance for info/cyber security-minded people.