Privacy

hideshow 18 child comments

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

Something can't be both "100%" and vibes based lol

Unless you mean "I am 100% basing the following opinion on vibes".

You need evidence. Please don't respond with more vibes.

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] gravitywell@sh.itjust.works 34 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I am sure it is a honeypot, they will work with feds. I base that on the people behind it.

Also it reminds me a lot of encrochat which had similar vibes about it.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] Kirk@startrek.website -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

This is depressing. Trial by vibes. I'm going to live in the woods.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] gravitywell@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Im not basing anything on vibes, this is how venture capital funded operations work.

If you expect some rich assholes to keep your chats secure and not cave after the slightest preasure, you're going to get taken for a ride.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Which is why it's a honey pot it's basically for gullible people.

parent

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

I can't believe I need to explain to someone that claiming you don't need evidence to declare something to be true is faith based on vibes. Tiktok has truly broken the younger generations brains.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] gravitywell@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

I cant believe i beed to explain to someone that venture capitalists are not good at security and do will not fight legal battles for the sake of their users. I linked multiple examples, believe what you want.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago

[citation needed]

parent

[–] tlmcleod@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

It's two separate sentences, my guy.. complete with a line break in between. So not even in the same paragraph. Did we just forget how to parse written language?

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 1 point 1 year ago

Uh, he confirmed in a reply that he had no evidence and was deciding based on faith alone.

parent

[–] ivn@jlai.lu 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

What makes you think encrochat was a honeypot? Am I missing something?

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] gravitywell@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Because they literally operated it as a honeypot and gave police full access to chats while advertising to criminals that it was safe.

EncroChat first came to the attention of the media when it was revealed that high-profile criminals Mark Fellows and Steven Boyle had been using the encrypted devices to communicate during the May 2018 gangland murder of John Kinsella in Rainhill, England.[16][9][17] The service resurfaced in the media during the summer of 2020 after law enforcement agencies announced that they had infiltrated the encrypted network and investigative journalist Joseph Cox, who had been reviewing EncroChat for months, published an exposé in Vice Motherboard

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] ivn@jlai.lu 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Where did you read that they gave police full access? I thought they were hacked.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] gravitywell@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

That's even worse then because they didn't even have a secure network from start. Be it willful ignorance or intentional assistance, its still a honeypot. This was a huge "I told you so" by a lot of the dark net community when it happened, a lot of people called it WAY ahead of time.

Encrochat isn't the only example, so i may have conflated it with one of these other Honeypot operations: ANOM, Phantom Secure , Ghost , SkyECC

You might be able to see a pattern here. People who actually want security and anonymity know that you can't trust those things over to a corporation or a bunch of tech broligarchs, they will either betray you intentionally or due to their incompetence.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] ivn@jlai.lu 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I don't see how being hacked make it "still a honeypot".

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] gravitywell@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

because it was being used to attract criminals into thinking it was a safe and legitimate service, while under theee surface it was relaying all the messages to law enforcement.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] ivn@jlai.lu 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Yes but

as far as we know they had no idea that it was hacked, so I don't see how you can get a "vibe" if they are blind to it
the criminals were already using it when LE discovered it and then hacked into it

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] gravitywell@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago*

I guess we have different definitions of what a honeypot is then. I dont think it has to start as a honeypot to qualify as one once law enforcement is involved.

There are countless examples of this kind of infiltration on other services. you can call it something else but either way i think youd have to be a fool to trust an operation like that to be in any way secure from monitoring by law enforcement.