zlacker

>>donoho+(OP)
I think there is a point to this. I’m not saying I’m a fan. But the reality is that it is too simple to communicate secretly, and the government has an interest in protecting its citizens. This is true in many aspects. (Health, technology, electronics, traffic)

Btw. The https communication comparison does not hold, there is always a third party that can read what you say. E2E chats are effectively communication where evidence is instantly destroyed.

Want to have a private communication, I think offline is the right approach.

I agree that it sucks, but it’s probably not about you. It’s about nefarious people that use this as an uber advantage.

>>LunicL+B9
>Btw. The https communication comparison does not hold, there is always a third party that can read what you say. E2E chats are effectively communication where evidence is instantly destroyed.

If I use a third party CA this is correct. But what third party can read communications over HTTPS between a client and a server I control with a self signed SSL cert?

>>nisega+La
This isn't correct with 3rd party CA's with modern TLS either.

TLSv1.2 has Perfect Forward Secrecy with DHE and ECDHE key exchanges and in TLSv1.3 PFS is mandatory. A compromised root CA or even leaf certificate these days protects you from a man-in-the-middle and not a whole lot else - the certificate private key is never used for session key derivation and the keys themselves are ephemeral and never sent over the wire so even intercepting the key exchange doesn't allow decryption of the stream.