Not exact matches
Communications between services — when an e-mail, for example, is sent from a user of Gmail to a user of Microsoft's Outlook mail — are not generally
encrypted, appearing to surveillance systems as
what experts call «clear text.»
Apple, Nokia and Research In Motion (RIM) gave Indian intelligence agencies secret access to
encrypted smartphone
communications as the price of doing business in the country, according to
what appear to be leaked Indian government documents.
Given that various email providers have different levels of access to email, and that it shouldn't be considered private
communication unless further
encrypted,
what steps do lawyers need to take to protect client's confidentiality?
Even if you
encrypt the data payload of your
communications, traffic analysis still reveals a great deal about
what you're doing and, possibly,
what you're saying.
However, courts can not effectively require people to do the impossible; if a programmer wrote a method that was used in an
encrypted communication service that does not mean the programmer, lacking the encryption key, will be forced to break
what they believe to be unbreakable encryption.
In this week's Weekend Reads: Facebook
encrypts communication, Yahoo does basically the opposite, and financial independence might not mean
what you think it does.
(On the other hand, there's still an information leakage from the volume and timing of
communications, like inferring that two people are communicating with one another in real time because their traffic flows are correlated, or figuring out
what page someone's reading on a site from that total volume of
encrypted traffic downloaded.)
Last year, the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National District Attorneys Association held a summit on
what they called «Going Dark» — the inability of law enforcement to address the problem
encrypted communications pose to public safety.