Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why We Should Celebrate Snapchat and Encourage Ephemeral Communication

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the get-off-my-lawn dept.

Privacy 140

An anonymous reader writes "Within a few months of launching, Snapchat has made an enormous and lasting impact on the culture of communication on the Internet – and we should all be grateful. They have simplified a security process enough to the point that anybody can use it, while validating the market of the next generation of privacy-preserving ephemeral communication. Most importantly, we may finally get a break from the forced permanence of the Facebook and Google world, where everything you do and share is a data point to be monetized and re-sold to the highest bidder."

cancel ×

140 comments

broken link (2)

Skapare (16644) | about a year ago | (#43801105)

The link is broken. I see naked HTML. Forbes won't let me in. Oh wait, What?

Re: broken link (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801155)

Yes, fix the link please

Re: broken link (4, Informative)

dreamchaser (49529) | about a year ago | (#43801241)

This is slashdot my friend. Editors don't actually edit anything.

Re: broken link (4, Funny)

fisted (2295862) | about a year ago | (#43801263)

Editors don't edit anymore because they perfectly know their readers don't read TFS anyway. The only group left on /. holding up to their promises are

Re: broken link (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#43801403)

In my experience the /. editors do edit.

Maybe I should have put "edit" in "funny quotes".

Re:broken link (2)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#43801395)

It's OK. I'll just put an end to the discussion now. There is no such thing as an ephemeral Internet. It is a myth. All your naughty words, deeds and pics are archived by a number of different services including The Internet Archive. Such a thing is not possible: the Internet is actually designed to prevent it. Various means of showing your naughty bits over the Internet to one person only for only a brief time have a number of design flaws including "THE ANALOG HOLE".

Re:broken link (3, Funny)

DoctorBonzo (2646833) | about a year ago | (#43801529)

Oooooh. Analog hole? You make it sound so dirty.

Re:broken link (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801515)

Like the app is broken?

Ephemeral haemorrhage anyone?

http://pastebin.com/YCMHb9Vw [pastebin.com]

Re:broken link (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801759)

The link is broken. I see naked HTML. Forbes won't let me in. Oh wait, What?

That's SnapWeb: the new privacy preserving, ephemeral web communication service. Forbes is totally bleeding edge.

What and what? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801117)

> privacy-preserving ephemeral communication. Most importantly, we may finally get a break from the forced permanence

If it's transmitted in the clear and displayed on a screen, it is neither privacy-preserving nor ephemeral.

Re:What and what? (3, Interesting)

homb (82455) | about a year ago | (#43801137)

Just like you can't stop someone from secretly recording a face-to-face conversation, Snapchat tries to enforce as much as possible the demands for privacy: if the recipient stores the message (through a camera screen capture for example), then it is clear s/he is going against the wishes of the sender, and that ultimately could have legal ramifications.
Technically the data isn't transmitted in the clear. You have to do some work to crack its encryption.

Re:What and what? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801157)

submitter spotted.

Re:What and what? (1)

homb (82455) | about a year ago | (#43801173)

absolutely not. complete miss.

Re:What and what? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801283)

naturally a submitter would react like this.
submitter identity confirmed

Re:What and what? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801257)

Snapchat tries to enforce as much as possible the demands for privacy: if the recipient stores the message (through a camera screen capture for example), then it is clear s/he is going against the wishes of the sender, and that ultimately could have legal ramifications.

NOPE.

THE INTERNET DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOODNIGHT!

Re:What and what? (2)

rjstanford (69735) | about a year ago | (#43801379)

if the recipient stores the message (through a camera screen capture for example), then it is clear s/he is going against the wishes of the sender, and that ultimately could have legal ramifications.

If that's acceptable, then just send your naked pictures with a little note saying, "Hey, please delete this instead of sharing it with your frat and checkoutmynakedgirlfried.com, mmmkay?" Either the technology as-is is adequate (in which case you don't need it), or its not (in which case you shouldn't use it).

Their marketing, however, appears to be fantastic, since the previous logic isn't being used.

Re:What and what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801427)

"...as much as possible..."
You wish. A student of mine has been working on implementing the same concept as Snapchat, but this time from a security point of view.
The project is *far* from finished, yet it offers two security features that snapchat doesn't:
- Pictures are encrypted
- Pictures are genuinely deleted after watching.

The idea of Snapchat is pretty cool. But being able to plug in a phone and easily recover "deleted" photos goes against the core of what the app promises...

Re:What and what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801447)

Well, that's a good thing nobody on client side can possibly tamper with it to save unencrypted pics before deletion!

Re: What and what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801577)

Your point is valid, but the analogy to someone secretly recording a conversation you're having with that person comes close. Sure it is possible, but since you're consciously conversing, you might be able to assess whether the other person would really do such a thing, and then whether the information you share is sensible in that regard.
If you don't trust the person you're sharing your CryptoSnap-pix to not go to those lengths as to retrieve the deleted image from her phone, then you wouldn't send them in the first place, but it became a conscious decision, compared to mostly hoping that won't happen with the current system.

Re: What and what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801935)

So you can't trust them not to spread your picture but you can trust them to not download a bypass and then spread your picture?

This thing is broken by design.

Re: What and what? (5, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about a year ago | (#43802053)

So you can't trust them not to spread your picture but you can trust them to not download a bypass and then spread your picture?

That's not a contradiction. You are looking at the problem in a single moment of time.

Alice trusts Today Bob enough today to not bypass the software OR spread the picture. Alice does not trust that Tomorrow Bob will not spread the picture.

By preventing Today Bob from preserving a copy of the picture, Tomorrow Bob will have no picture to disseminate. Tomorrow Bob cannot alter Today Bob's software. Why would Today Bob be trusted but Tomorrow Bob not be trusted? A nasty breakup could occur between Today and Tomorrow.

If this system were broken by design, then you might want to inform the DoD and the whole process of security 'reading in, and reading out' with regard to access to information. You trust the person today to not make copies of classified information, you also trust them to not attempt to circumvent software controls. That doesn't mean you trust them later, to not want to pass on that information, but you take precautions TODAY to ensure that they don't retain that information in case they change their minds later.

In short: It is possible to trust and not trust a single entity, when the periods of trust and not trust are distinct moments in time.

Re: What and what? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year ago | (#43802037)

This doesn't work because most people won't murder-rape you and kidnap your child to turn them into a 9 year old sex slave; but just about anyone you're going to send titty-pics to is going to keep your titty-pics if they find any way at all to make it happen.

Erm no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801495)

Unless you have an actual agreement between two parties (that may be enforced in the software, I don't know) both parties to a conversation have every right to make it public.

That is why NDAs exist.

Re: Erm no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801593)

NDAs are too heavyweight for such a seemingly ephemeral information exchange. Either people wouldn't care (and copy the images nonetheless), or they would stop using the service.

Third party obligations (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43801687)

Unless you have an actual agreement between two parties

One party uses Snapchat. The other party uses Snapchat. Therefore both parties have an agreement with a third party, and obligations to this third party may include non-disclosure unless otherwise specified, though I myself haven't read the Snapchat TOS because I lack a smartphone with a data plan.

Re: What and what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801145)

Not to mention that Snapchat doesn't actually delete your photos [businessinsider.com] .

Re: What and what? (2)

HJED (1304957) | about a year ago | (#43801297)

Actually it does in the same way that pressing delete in a file browser does, (the article doesn't explain it very well) the problem is that that can be recovered using data forensic tools as it is not overridden merely unmapped. I would argue that is a flaw (or an efficiency decision) in the OS. If you want to securely delete something on a computer you need to use a tool that overrides it a few times first.

Re: What and what? (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about a year ago | (#43801549)

The storage is Flash memory, so a single overwrite is enough. They don't even do that.

Re: What and what? (1)

HJED (1304957) | about a year ago | (#43801585)

Sorry, my mistake I wasn't aware that it was different for flash. That is probably why they haven't fixed it yet.

Re: What and what? (2)

Aaden42 (198257) | about a year ago | (#43802055)

If you're talking about forensic recovery, then you can't kill it with just one overwrite. Wear-leveling at the hardware level would ensure that your single overwrite actually wrote to different physical blocks than the original. The original blocks wouldn't be touched again until a reasonably large percentage of free storage was overwritten. If you can root the device, you should be able to read out the raw disk blocks with `dd` or similar, Search for "JFIF" tags identifying a JPEG image, and go from there. Assuming the OS is booted at that point, any built-in flash encryption would transparently decrypt as you accessed it, so no help there.

iOS at least does provide a way to do this properly if you really want to. Never store the image in the clear. Create a random encryption key for each image and write the image to flash encrypted with that key. Store the key in the OS' Keychain services. When you want to delete the image, destroy the key, then you can delete the encrypted image from the flash device without concern. iOS provides a mechanism for actually destroying a key in Keychain. IE the flash wear-leveling problem is accounted for at the operating system level. Down side to that is now your app has to go through US export control BS since it does encryption

SO... Now that it's secure on disk, I move to the next weakness. Sniff it over the wire. I haven't looked at SnapChat's traffic, but let's assume they used SSL (otherwise, way too easy...). You'd need to setup a man-in-the-middle proxy. Even on locked down non-jailbroken iOS, you can add trusted CA roots to the OS. So self-sign a cert for whatever hostname they use for their servers, trust it on the device, and now you can sniff the images to save them and most likely figure out the protocol to emulate a client and remove the phone from the equation completely.

Of course, all of this is pretty silly when there's an OS-provided screen capture function that apps aren't able to delete. Power/home button combination, and you have a screenshot. The entire concept of Snapchat is fundamentally flawed given that it can't possibly enforce what it's stated purpose for existence is on its target platform.

Re: What and what? (2)

blueg3 (192743) | about a year ago | (#43802201)

That's not actually the case here. People seem to be assuming that you can recover Snapchat images because they're deleted but the data is still resident on disk. Sure, that's a common reason for being able to recover data from a computer. It's not the case, though.

The problem seems to have first been documented [decipherforensics.com] by Decipher Forensics. It's clear from their writeup that they didn't do data carving to recover deleted files. The images are simply stored an a directory that's not user-accessible and not deleted.

Within this folder were located every image sent to [a SnapChat] account ... including the images that had been viewed and were expired.

Perhaps (1)

lesincompetent (2836253) | about a year ago | (#43801123)

Slashdot's lowest point?

Re:Perhaps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801139)

Snapchat is webscale!

or something like that.

Re:Perhaps (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year ago | (#43801177)

I believe that's MongoDB

Re:Perhaps (3)

digitalchinky (650880) | about a year ago | (#43801307)

I have no idea what snapchat is, don't care either, though a couple of weeks back it was something about snapchat's not disappearing, now this - how much is slashdot being paid to run this stuff?

Re:Perhaps (4, Funny)

smallfries (601545) | about a year ago | (#43801159)

Best slashvertisement. Ever.
Best editing of a summary. Ever.

Lowest point? We should be handing out awards for this shit.

Re:Perhaps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801219)

I don't really know. Recently there was a submitter who wrote a story because he had problems with the settings of an application he was using. That was low enough for me. This one is just another bad advertisement.

Snap What? (5, Insightful)

Cornwallis (1188489) | about a year ago | (#43801141)

"Snapchat has made an enormous and lasting impact..."

And this is the first I've heard of it.

Re: Snap What? (5, Insightful)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year ago | (#43801147)

Me too. And I still don't know wtf it is, or why I should care.

Re: Snap What? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801303)

I heard it's like video chat, but just with still images instead of video. And lots of wangs.

Re: Snap What? (4, Informative)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about a year ago | (#43801611)

Snapchat is a picture messaging service which displays the image, once opened, for only 10 seconds, then deletes it. You can't screenshot the image because you need to hold your touchscreen for the image to display for those 10 seconds.

There are hacks to bypass this security feature, but they require a rooted phone.

Re: Snap What? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801723)

There are hacks to bypass this security feature, but they require a rooted phone.

Or, on an iPhone, you hit the power and home buttons simultaneously, because iOS doesn't give a shit if you're using the touchscreen or not when you do that.

Re: Snap What? (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | about a year ago | (#43801771)

Or just take a picture of the phone's screen and crop the phone/finger from the image. Snapchat offers zero security.

Re: Snap What? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about a year ago | (#43801803)

Snapchat makes it slightly more cumbersome to keep a permanent record of the message contents. You have physical access to the device, so obviously you will be able to copy the message somehow. All I meant is that there are methods to circumvent the protections offered by the software using software only, but that they require a rooted Android phone to work.

Re: Snap What? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43802223)

Snapchat is a picture messaging service which displays the image, once opened, for only 10 seconds, then deletes it. You can't screenshot the image because you need to hold your touchscreen for the image to display for those 10 seconds.

10 seconds is all I need.

Re:Snap What? (4, Insightful)

dyfet (154716) | about a year ago | (#43801153)

Indeed. At least cryptocat I had heard about...never heard of this ever before. Sounds like self-promotion by a private commercial entity...and then there is this about it (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapchat [wikipedia.org] )

"...In May 2013, Forbes reported that the photos do not actually disappear, and that they can still be retrieved even after their time limit had expired.[6]..."

Oops...maybe your snapchat really is only shared with your friends and every three letter agency in the book?! :)

Re:Snap What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801625)

Oh wait. I have heard of this thing. Exactly that their photo thingy doesn't deliver on the USP, the deletion afterwards.

Right, so. A broken slashvertisement of a broken product. What else is new?

Re:Snap What? (1)

Exitar (809068) | about a year ago | (#43801183)

It's the second time for me.
The first time was an article describing how the photos that should have been deleted from the phone by snapchat actually weren't.

Re:Snap What? (2)

Njovich (553857) | about a year ago | (#43801315)

I take it nobody has sent you any naughty pictures recently? You may not be the target group for it.

And I don't mean this insultingly or so, I'm neither. But make no mistake, 90% of people under 20 know about it, and it did have its impact.

Re:Snap What? (2)

Cenan (1892902) | about a year ago | (#43801483)

I take it nobody has sent you any naughty pictures recently? You may not be the target group for it.

Technically the target audience would be the people sending the pictures, the ones receiving would be a secondary audience - and only use the program because the primary audience is sending naked tits to them via it. Akin to why many people around here, allegedly, use Facebook, because other people use it and they wish to participate. /nitpick_off

But this is by far not the first time I've heard of it, although I wouldn't have been able to name it by name, I knew of chat apps for phones that tried to implement a kind of DRM scheme for sexting. A dead end, but people seemed to have bought it nonetheless.

Re:Snap What? (2)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about a year ago | (#43801615)

If you send naughty pictures to a recipient you don't trust, you deserve the fallout. Learning who is trustworthy is a valuable life skill; It shouldn't be hacked around by technology.

Re:Snap What? (2)

Arduenn (2908841) | about a year ago | (#43801325)

FTFA

The makers of Snapchat are right to reject the “sexting app” label – it’s not clear that this is what it is even being used for, and everyone deserves the option to communicate privately when they want, without automatically being branded as a pervert.

Just as I thought. It's just another sexting app.

Re:Snap What? (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year ago | (#43801505)

I would have loved to read the article, but there weren't any links in the summary. Well, there was one, but both the submitter and the editor are incompetent at submitting and editing.

Re:Snap What? (2)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about a year ago | (#43801407)

"Snapchat has made an enormous and lasting impact..."

And this is the first I've heard of it.

I believe the author like every teenager thinks he invented masturbation

Which of course is impossible because I invented it!

Re:Snap What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801491)

we've got video proof that ur mum taught u.

Re:Snap What? (1)

Guspaz (556486) | about a year ago | (#43802311)

Ditto, never even heard of it. Considering how many other people have never heard of it, I question if it has had much of any impact, let alone an "enormous and lasting impact".

Snapchats Don't Disappear - deleted photos found (5, Insightful)

dyfet (154716) | about a year ago | (#43801169)

How do they reconcile their claims with "Snapchats Don't Disappear: Forensics Firm Has Pulled Dozens of Supposedly-Deleted Photos From Android Phones" - http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/05/09/snapchats-dont-disappear/?utm_campaign=forbestwittersf&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social [forbes.com]

"A 24-year-old forensics examiner from Utah has made a discovery that may make some Snapchat users think twice before sending a photo that they think is going to quickly disappear. Richard Hickman of Decipher Forensics found that it’s possible to pull Snapchat photos from Android phones simply by downloading data from the phone using forensics software and removing a “.NoMedia” file extension that was keeping the photos from being viewed on the device. He published his findings online and local TV station KSL has a video showing how it’s done ..."

Opps...sounds closer to fraudsters

Re:Snapchats Don't Disappear - deleted photos foun (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43801193)

if someone can see the message they can record it.
if not with anything else then with another smartphone, duh.

this is just a snapchat advertisement.

Re:Snapchats Don't Disappear - deleted photos foun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801229)

if someone can see the message they can record it.

The point is, the photos are already recorded without you doing anything. Imagine you are using it to send a picture which could get you in trouble for having (say, you are in some country with oppressive regime, and you share a proof of wrongdoing by the government). You expect the phone of the receiver to be searched eventually, but you also know the receiver would not willingly store the photo. You trust that the photo will be gone, because that's what Snapchat advertises. Now, it turns out the photo was stored anyway on his phone. Big trouble ahead.

Re:Snapchats Don't Disappear - deleted photos foun (1, Funny)

HJED (1304957) | about a year ago | (#43801317)

Nope, they used data forensics to recovery files, the same techniques used to recover deleted files from desktop computers by criminal investigators, it is not something most developers would consider likely and (until very recently thanks to snapchat and the media attention) something that most users would not have the technical ability to do, especially on a phone.
That being said snapchat developers probably should have fixed it by now (by overriding it before deletion like secure deletion tools do)

Re:Snapchats Don't Disappear - deleted photos foun (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801443)

Ooooohhhhh, data forensics? That sound compli-muh-cated. Not like anyone could do it I'm sure.

Re:Snapchats Don't Disappear - deleted photos foun (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year ago | (#43801509)

Psh. They do that shit on every other episode of CSI. And clearly if the under-funded police can do that, then anyone can do that.

Wake up and smell the erosion of rights!

Re:Snapchats Don't Disappear - deleted photos foun (0)

HJED (1304957) | about a year ago | (#43801595)

No, but most developers just assume that the OS's delete function works, and both accessing the deleted files and deleting them properly requires root access.
Until people started publishing step by step guides for the purpose of retriveing these files, the tools available where quite difficult to use and required a reasonably high level of technical knowledge.

Re:Snapchats Don't Disappear - deleted photos foun (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801855)

It doesn't require data forensics. It just requires a basic understanding of storing files. If I have a file that is 2 GB large, the best way to store it is in contiguous space. There are also methods of using non-contiguous space that are just as simple - the first piece of information points to the next piece and so on, until you reach the end. Most operating systems will do that for you.

When you 'delete' a file, all the operating system does is go to the beginning of that file and sets a flag that states 'all of this allocated space can now be used'. You're writing something on the order of bytes or bits to the disk in order to 'delete' the file, but all of the data that was there is still there.

The alternative would be to go through every bit in the file and set it to '0' or to '1', whichever you chose would be completely arbitrary. For a file as large as 2 GB this will require 17,179,869,184 bits to be overwritten.

For most files that aren't really all that important, this method works extremely well. If you want to delete a 10 GB video game, it takes you seconds. Not minutes or hours like it did when you were installing it. If you mess up, it's as simple as undeleting the file you want, and you can find un-delete programs for any operating system, they don't cost $$$ and they don't require intense knowledge of computers - just knowledge that undeleting is possible.

The correct thing to do is to 'shred' the file, which is standard practice on all systems where sensitive information is handled. Simply encrypting data is not enough. File shredding will write random 1s and 0s over every bit in the file, and most file shredders will do it multiple times so that no part of the original file is readable. Missing this small step in security makes me question everything about snapchat and their ability to handle these pictures.

Re:Snapchats Don't Disappear - deleted photos foun (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801563)

The snapchat blog and FAQ detail how they store data and when and how that data is deleted. They are completely upfront about this,

I'd never heard of snapchat until today, but I found this information with about 2 minutes worth of effort.
Why are you people making a big deal about something they are completely open about?

privacy and security? (1)

siddesu (698447) | about a year ago | (#43801179)

considering the permissions the android apps is asking for, i rather stay with google hangouts.

The Slashdot Trifecta (5, Insightful)

water-and-sewer (612923) | about a year ago | (#43801185)

"We should be grateful" the summary says.

Well I for one am grateful that we seem to have hit the Slashdot trifecta: (1) Obvious, blatant slashvertisement intended to showcase some product noone's ever heard of, (2) link to a site behind a paywall, and (3) Web 2.0 product that somehow involves social and tracking and profile building, something I would want no part of.

Do I win? And if so, do I get my money back?

Re:The Slashdot Trifecta (1)

bignetbuy (1105123) | about a year ago | (#43801393)

You've got my vote. Where can I send my slashdot subscription fee?

Re:The Slashdot Trifecta (2)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year ago | (#43801511)

You forgot: (4) a blatently obvious lack of using the "Preview" button on the part of the "editor", and a complete disregard for fixing it after it's been pointed out and tagged as a broken link.

Re:The Slashdot Trifecta (2)

c (8461) | about a year ago | (#43801567)

... (2) link to a site behind a paywall ... Do I win? And if so, do I get my money back?

Technically, it's just a URL with some mangled HTML which might have made it into a link if a so-called editor actually did his fucking job.

So, it's a Slashdot trifecta, just not the one you identified. No prize for you.

Re:The Slashdot Trifecta (0)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | about a year ago | (#43801719)

Your observation changes nothing.

Re:The Slashdot Trifecta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43802075)

Obvious, blatant slashvertisement intended to showcase some product noone's ever heard of,

Snapchat made quite a bit of news when Facebook tried to copy it with Poke. Google results. [google.com]

Wha?? (0)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year ago | (#43801189)

Is English your mother tongue, samzenpuss?

Re:Wha?? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#43801487)

Don't blame the editors. It's not their job to read submissions, correct any errors like broken HTML tags, fix grammatical errors and otherwise tidy up so that we are presented with a clear, concise summary of the subject to be discussed.

Or at least I assume it isn't, because they never seem to do so.

Commercialware - Government In Control (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801213)

Thanks for this slashvertisement. Not let me deconstruct it:

It's a commercial entity behind this, which means the government has easy leverage to make them snoop on all their millions of users. All the government has to do is to set them up for "inquiry into inappropriate accounting and tax evasion". See what they did to Bernie Ebbers of MCI and the boss of Qwest.

Bernie Ebbers did not comply with their demands for illegal eavesdropping, he did not take their bribe in the form of "NSA telecommunications contracts" and then Mr Ebbers was thrown into jail to rot until he will probably die or have dementia.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/05/13/210046/-Bush-Retaliates-Against-Qwest-For-Saying-No-To-Spying

The REAL finance criminals of New York, those who destroyed the world economy in 1929 and tried the same in 2008/9, they collect their bonuses and retire to their country castles. They certainly DO NOT go to jail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_R._Greenberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_S._Fuld,_Jr.

Very soon the New York criminals will use YOU Americans for a new war, after they used you to take out Saddam Hussein. The new war will be against Iran, because that nation feels with the oppressed people in Gaza and the West Bank. The real terrorists in Saudi-Arabia and Israel won't be touched.

Let's see how corruption, decadence, sodomy, drug abuse and lies work out on the long run for the American Empire. If history is a guide, it will end very much like the Roman Empire. Just at internet speed.

Re:Commercialware - Government In Control (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801629)

Not necessarily disagreeing with anything you've posted, but I'm really not sure how you got from a "deconstruction" of a blatant slashvertisment for some kind of photo-sharing service, to middle-eastern politics. Let me try.

As a photo-sharing service, it is not at all out of the question that bigger "social media" operators like facebook, google or even Microsoft might buy them out to either extinguish or intgrate the chatsnap service into their own. This means that any pictures you put into this service could, ultimately end up in the hands of someone like Mark Zuckerberg who, as we all know, is a vegetarian.

Vegetarianism is not only better for your body and for the environment, but is self-evidently the most ethical way of life possible, seeking to minimise the amount of suffering caused to other living, feeling creatures. If the world were to switch from animal proteins to pulses and fungus-based protein, not only would the amount of land required for agriculture be massively reduced, but greenhouse emissions in the industrialised world would whistle for a cab and when it came near the License plate said "fresh" and had a dice in the mirror If anything I could say that this cab was rare But I thought nah, forget it, yo homes to Bel-air! I pulled up to a house about seven or eight And I yelled to the cabby "Yo, homes smell you later!" Looked at my kingdom I was finally there To sit on my throne as the prince of Bel-air

Re:Commercialware - Government In Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801761)

To the two ac comments above. This is the borg hive mind cross talk perfected. One day we will have a queen ruling us all and filtering all the information for the masses of drones to consume and act on.

P.S. I agree with you all but veganism sucks and we need fat and protein for survival. Also its aliens, not bankers ;p Or Nazis.

Re:Commercialware - Government In Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43802073)

> Also its aliens, not bankers ;p Or Nazis.

Actually, it was Uncle Phil.

Wait, what (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801247)

in the actual fuck is ..

Oh dear (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#43801311)

They have simplified a security process enough to the point that anybody can use it

Yeah, and look what's happened to Slashdot now it's so simple that anyone can use it:

the market of the next generation of a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarunwadhwa/2013/05/22/why-we-should-

Please, submitters, check your summaries (I say "your", though this is just another copy-and-paste job) for things like borked HTML, because the editors clearly aren't interested in editing anything.

if you have to tell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801319)

If you have to tell me I should celebrate it then it obviously isn't very good on it's own or I'd already know why I should celebrate it. I hate these need paid articles on /.

Because it's broken by design (2)

brunes69 (86786) | about a year ago | (#43801373)

Keeping chat history in the cloud with Google Talk / Hangouts is one of the features I love about the service the most. I can not even count the number of times that the ability to look at old chat logs has saved my butt.

The very "feature" SnapChat is promoting is also the reason I would never use their service... I want and need a cloud-based shared history for my chat logs, thanks. To me, they are just as important and ephemeral as emails.

Re:Because it's broken by design (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about a year ago | (#43801641)

This is a serious "Whoosh", not one of those comedic ones. You have totally missed the point of this service.

Imagine a situation where you wouldn't want the recipient to have a permanent record of your message. If you can't then this app isn't for you. Please keep on using one of the many services offering a logged history.

Re:Because it's broken by design (1)

brunes69 (86786) | about a year ago | (#43802295)

I think you need to re-read the summary of this post and the linked article where it is suggested that these apps should be used for more day-to-day conversations.

I am not arguing that this app does not have a place. I am saying its place is not to supplant existing messaging services. It serves a niche, that is all.

 

Re:Because it's broken by design (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801669)

I don't think you understand what ephemeral means, it is the only "feature" of snap chat. The idea you can discretely send something that can only be viewed for a short period of time is very attractive. Our whole lives are governed by ephemeral interactions, so everything being stored forever on the internet is almost against our nature. We want everything stored that we want to remember, but we want most common things forgotten. The Get Off My Lawn crowd is not the target of this application, but my younger college friends love it. And surprisingly, most of the crap they send is like blown kisses, not wangs. Some send 100+ per day, pretty crazy.

Did Snapchat write this story? (5, Insightful)

bignetbuy (1105123) | about a year ago | (#43801387)

This "stories" has all the hallmarks of some marketing dribble written by Snapchat. It has the right buzzwords, is full of itself, and touts some silly app as the future of the Internet.

When did Slashdot sell its soul and start accepting stories from companies?

Snapchat is ok... (1)

grub (11606) | about a year ago | (#43801417)

... But I like Wickr. Self destructing messages and pictures, strong end-to-end encryption, Wickr has no idea what traverses the system, etc. https://www.mywickr.com/ [mywickr.com]

Snapchat is a joke. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801479)

As soon as I saw this I laughed my ass off. The reality is that if you send something to someone, they can have it forever. A friend of mine has written apps for both iOS and Android using Cydia Substrate to hook the API calls used to display images and video in snapchat and automatically save them out to your SD card.

It's not possible by definition of how computers work to do something like this securely.

Re:Snapchat is a joke. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801497)

Indeed, we should encourage encrypted communication and use of things such as OTR and Truecrypt, but it's impossible to prevent someone your message is sent to from storing your message.

Snapchat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801503)

lolwut?

http://pastebin.com/YCMHb9Vw [slashdot.org]

A better example (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801543)

I think website like 4chan are a better example of ephemeral communication, since unlike this they've already stood the test of time

Who is this submitter representing? (1)

kasperd (592156) | about a year ago | (#43801569)

Most importantly, we may finally get a break from the forced permanence of the Facebook and Google world, where everything you do and share is a data point to be monetized and re-sold to the highest bidder.

I would be much more willing to trust Google with my data than any new company showing up. Regardless of what the Internets are claiming, Google does not sell users' data.

Google earned my trust through their actual actions. If a new company want to earn my trust, they have to do the same. It is not hard to create a system, that I would rather trust with my data, than any of Google's systems. All it requires is a system, where it is technically impossible for the company behind to snoop my data. And the system has to be open enough, that those security properties can be independently verified by any third party, who wishes to do so.

Why only for mobile phones ? (1)

Anneco (710407) | about a year ago | (#43801627)

It is not available for my nexus 7 tablet.

Snapchat doesn't disappear (4, Interesting)

anthony_greer (2623521) | about a year ago | (#43801673)

Do the editors read the news? I first saw this yesterday morning:

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-privacy-watchdog-epic-files-complaint-against-snapchat-with-ftc-20130517,0,3618395.story [latimes.com]

and if they weren't monitoring/storing snap chat, I would think the FBI would be bitching like they do about Skype...

Slashdot bug report (4, Funny)

2phar (137027) | about a year ago | (#43801745)

The 'disable advertising' option appears to no longer be working.

THE highest bidder? (1)

laron (102608) | about a year ago | (#43801749)

You have a lot to learn. There's no reason to sell data to only one paying customer, is there?

Speaking of Grateful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43801877)

Slashdot should be grateful people continue to visit this site.

Why do you post nonsense?!

More and more stories are shite.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...