Hacker News Reader

Comment by O__________O | Hacker News Reader

This is not about you, please stop; no reason to believe that either your own well being or life is on the line, nor for that matter, that of your friends and family.

Concept of plausible deniability is vital in situations like this for all parties involved. Unless you are able to prove via evidence it is not, please refrain from (repeatedly) commenting on a topic, that at least to me, you appear to be unfamiliar with and has the very real potential to result in physical harm to others.

If I have errored in my reasoning, please feel free to explicitly state why. Thanks.

View on HN

Oh come on!

If you are talking about plausible deniability for the person (I was talking about Twitter) - there is strictly zero value of it for him. He is in prison and everything should be done to free him up.

Other people that worked with him? It is not like the public Twitter messages cannot be filed as they come (other do it for you too). You mean that he may have received DMs? Ah, and the zealots in Iran will just say "ah yes, right, this must be the devil US".

So before getting all warmed up - state what you have to state. This is not like there is a big secret about people using Twitter/Telegram/Signal to protect their lives and only you, me and 3 other people are aware.

You are probably much more experienced in plausible deniability than me. I have just set this up for companies, on actual systems with actual encryption.

It is not that you have an error in your reasoning - it is that I do not see that reasoning at all.

Twitter’s encryption offers no plausible deniability. Even Twitter having the data offline might potentially be a threat in the worse case scenario, given countries have used insiders to again access to information:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/former-twit...

Again, if you have evidence deleting the accounts of detained activists has made them less safe, please provide it.

What is your meaning of "plausible deniability"? In cryptography, this is the fact that data cannot be confirmed to be encrypted. In other words: you see a file or read some raw data and you cannot prove that this is encrypted data vs random bits.

What kind of plausible deniability do you expect from Twitter? The app may leave numerous traces in the phone and this has nothing to do with Twitter but it is just the way things work. Once you know that Twitter was installed, where do you see room for plausible deniability?

Point two: you do not know whether the accounts were deleted. They may have been suspended/masked/whatever.

Point three: well, if you are taking into account internal espionnage, do you expect that the data from within Twitter will only be retrieved after the imprisonment?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com