You’re worried about mass, indiscriminate, undetectable invasion of privacy? Your work has paid off, and you have the proof.
— SwiftOnSecurity (@SwiftOnSecurity) March 7, 2017
Except for the people murdered by the other percent because the CIA couldn’t listen, of course. 😧
— SwiftOnSecurity (@SwiftOnSecurity) March 7, 2017
Security isn’t an impossible goal reserved for some elite with $2000 phones.it’s choices. It’s education. It’s designing for people.
— SwiftOnSecurity (@SwiftOnSecurity) March 7, 2017
Who analyzed #Vault7? Who wrote the summary, whose insinuative talking points you see repeated verbatim on the news in a publicity blitz?
— SwiftOnSecurity (@SwiftOnSecurity) March 7, 2017
@wikileaks Can you point us to the source doc that confirms this? Have been unable to find any docs that mention Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp
— Open Whisper Systems (@whispersystems) March 7, 2017
Every headline about the CIA hacking Signal/WhatsApp was written by Wikileaks in their summary, based on nothing.https://t.co/lh1yOhMQHX
— SwiftOnSecurity (@SwiftOnSecurity) March 8, 2017
Basically the breathless Wikileaks CIA assertions are almost entirely bullshit. Because end to end encryption works they need physical access to the device they want to hack. That should’ve been the story, that subverting a smart device requires the same high risk on site intrusion by a tech surveillance team that planting any other traditional bug would necessitate. Instead what Wikileaks is selling, the idea that someone at Langley can type a command into their desk terminal and eavesdrop on you through your Samsung TV, has absolutely zero basis in fact.