Some people think this is an elaborate troll. Not a Mac user so I can't really evaluate this and as I understand it the actual details of the iMessage implementation are not known publicly anyway.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130405/01485922590/dea-accused-leaking-misleading-info-falsely-implying-that-it-cant-read-apple-imessages.shtml Basically the claim is that Apple retains the encryption keys so that while it is true as they say in the "leak" that they can't get the data from the carriers even with a court order, they could get it by going to Apple. On 4/8/2013 14:31, fr...@journalistsecurity.net wrote: > I imagine people here might have thoughts about this. Comes from a > Texas-based, civil liberties-oriented blog. > > Encryption for cloud communications may best protect Fourth Amendment > rights > via Grits for Breakfast by Gritsforbreakfast on 4/6/13 > > http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2013/04/encryption-for-cloud-communications-may.html > > Says readwrite mobile: > With government requests for personal data on the rise, there are few > guarantees in place that you or I won't have our private communications > snooped through. Since the Fourth Amendment hasn't yet caught up with > the lightning fast pace of technological change, some of the best > privacy protections are often the ones implemented by tech companies > themselves. > Well put. The comment comes in response to a DEA complaint that > encryption on the Apple iPhone's chat services made them indecipherable, > even with a warrant. Continued writer John Paul Titlow: > By architecting iMessage the way it did, Apple created a messaging > protocol more secure and private than standard text messages, which is > how millions of people communicate every day. As we fire those texts > back and forth, we're all creating a digital trail that can be snooped > upon or hacked more easily than we care to think about. But if they're > being and sent and received from iPhones running iOS 5 or later, those > messages are invisible to wiretaps by law enforcement or other prying > eyes. > > Apple didn't have to build iMessage with end-to-end encryption. Gmail > isn't encrypted this way, nor are the Facebook messages that are > increasingly used like texts on mobile devices. Clearly, SMS text > messages aren't particularly well-secured either. Whether winning > privacy points was its motivation or not, Apple definitely racks up a > few for this. > Legislation like Texas Rep. Jon Stickland's HB 3164 to require warrants > to access electronic communications is one way to protect privacy for > third-party facilitated communications, but a far more effective one > would be if Gmail, Facebook, and other major providers encrypted user > messages. Those companies may or may not have an economic incentive to > do so, but they're arguably in a better position in many cases than > legislatures or the courts to protect privacy and Fourth Amendment > rights. > > Frank SmythExecutive DirectorGlobal Journalist > Securityfrank@journalistsecurity.netTel. + 1 202 244 0717Cell + 1 202 > 352 1736Twitter: @JournoSecurityWebsite: www.journalistsecurity.netPGP > Public Key > -- > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by > emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. William Pitt (1759-1806) -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
