Hong Kong Protesters Using Mesh Messaging App China Can't Block: Usage Up 3685% (forbes.com) 57
An anonymous reader quotes Forbes: How do you communicate when the government censors the internet? With a peer-to-peer mesh broadcasting network that doesn't use the internet.
That's exactly what Hong Kong pro-democracy protesters are doing now, thanks to San Francisco startup Bridgefy's Bluetooth-based messaging app. The protesters can communicate with each other — and the public — using no persistent managed network...
While you can chat privately with contacts, you can also broadcast to anyone within range, even if they are not a contact.
That's clearly an ideal scenario for protesters who are trying to reach people but cannot use traditional SMS texting, email, or the undisputed uber-app of China: WeChat. All of them are monitored by the state.
Wednesday another article in Forbes confirmed with Bridgefy that their app uses end-to-end RSA encryption -- though an associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute warns in the same article about the possibility of the Chinese government demanding that telecom providers hand over a list of all users running the app and where they're located.
Forbes also notes that "police could sign up to Bridgefy and, at the very least, cause confusion by flooding the network with fake broadcasts" -- or even use the app to spread privacy-compromising malware. "But if they're willing to accept the risk, Bridgefy could remain a useful tool for communicating and organizing in extreme situations."
That's exactly what Hong Kong pro-democracy protesters are doing now, thanks to San Francisco startup Bridgefy's Bluetooth-based messaging app. The protesters can communicate with each other — and the public — using no persistent managed network...
While you can chat privately with contacts, you can also broadcast to anyone within range, even if they are not a contact.
That's clearly an ideal scenario for protesters who are trying to reach people but cannot use traditional SMS texting, email, or the undisputed uber-app of China: WeChat. All of them are monitored by the state.
Wednesday another article in Forbes confirmed with Bridgefy that their app uses end-to-end RSA encryption -- though an associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute warns in the same article about the possibility of the Chinese government demanding that telecom providers hand over a list of all users running the app and where they're located.
Forbes also notes that "police could sign up to Bridgefy and, at the very least, cause confusion by flooding the network with fake broadcasts" -- or even use the app to spread privacy-compromising malware. "But if they're willing to accept the risk, Bridgefy could remain a useful tool for communicating and organizing in extreme situations."
Cool (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And before anybody scream here on the chief executive Carrie Lam conceding on the point of legislation, it is no longer only an issue of the extradition b
Re:Cool (Score:4, Insightful)
I fear you won't have much change until politicians start getting sent back to their mainland without their heads.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Cool (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Cool (Score:5, Insightful)
That wouldn't be a good idea. It would be much harder for China to justify force if their puppets are merely forcibly removed. Plus, if they go around beheading people, China can argue that they're now terrorists rather than protesters, and that would make it much harder for any foreign countries to justify intervention.
If the goal is to embarrass China's government, have them wear a big postcard, with correct postage attached, and write on it "Dear Xi, Hong Kong is not entertained by marionette shows." Take a few pictures, and send them on their way. If you want those politicians to be punished in ways they can't imagine, don't worry, the Chinese government will take care of it.
Re: (Score:1)
America created a lot of them. Obama had no trouble, at all, arming the ISIS in Syria.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm very curious about this, can someone explain?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Not directly or intentionally, anyway. The US gave arms to the non-ISIS Syrian rebels but some of them wound up in the hands of ISIS.
Not directly hmm.. so if you give it to someone who later changes his name several times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
After several mergers with other groups, it changed its name several times until it called itself Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) in 2006.
to ISIS that is not directly. OK, i'm buying that. And not 'intentionally' part - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] - yeah im buying that too. We have no plans to play divide and conquer games and establish our 'spheres of influence', its all totally non intentional, we are all honest god fearing Christians after all :D
Re: Cool (Score:5, Informative)
The problem for the Hong Kong protestors is that Jinping's and the CCP propaganda machine seems to have convinced most mainlanders that the people of Hong Kong are ungrateful for the bliss that the CCP has bestowed upon Hong Kong. That's the bliss of not knowing what the Party is really doing to you until you show up in one of their Eyes doing something of which the Party does not approve.
Of course it is hard to know what the Chinese people would think if the Party was not telling them what to think.
Re: (Score:2)
I regularly interact with Chinese at a number of levels in their society _outside_ of China.
It's very clear what most people think vs what they say in public - they're mostly fully aware that the government has some shitty ideas - and I've had to caution a few of the more outspoken individuals that in the academic organisation I work for, we suspect there are members of the PLA posing as academics & monitoring the activities of citizens/reporting home, so please be a little more subtle unless you don't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's going to be of even more interest in a few more years is the effect of Elon's Skynet project and the way it will bypass national firewalls EVERYWHERE
A lot of governments are shitting themselves about this, not just the repressive ones that spring to mind straightaway. There are a lot of places which have achieved the same effect simply by having poor network speeds or by pricing out of reach of Joe Average.
A lot of legislated (or effectively legislated in the case of the USA) monopolies are also shit
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They should be using a free, non-proprietary solution like Meshenger [f-droid.org].
Bluetooth beacon tracking? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Bluetooth beacon tracking? (Score:2)
If it's implemented correctly, it won't be a problem. Think WiFi mac address randomization.
Leading the charge? (Score:4, Interesting)
As is, I can't see the Chinese regime lasting forever. Too rigid. When you have over a billion people in your country you'd better not piss them off.
Re:Leading the charge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Leading the charge? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know which rock you're living under, I see this in the news all the time, though mostly google news. And there isn't a whole lot the US can do about this at the moment. As far as I'm aware, neither the UN nor any major governmental bodies recognize Hong Kong as a sovereign state independent from China, which means that as of right now, it's an internal Chinese matter. The US could only intervene if they had a status similar to Taiwan. All we can really do is apply diplomatic pressure, and we're pretty much already doing that with the tariffs. We could sanction them, but that would be extremely difficult. The Chinese government would practically have to commit a crime against humanity.
If there's one thing that the Chinese government hates, it's not getting things the way it wants. They take that as a form of embarrassment, which weakens the infallible image that they're trying to maintain. Things aren't going China's way internationally, and in the case of Hong Kong, domestically either. Right now, China is blaming this on the US to cover their own asses, and that's what the Chinese population mostly believes, because that's all they're allowed to believe. However, that charade won't last forever so long as we don't make that narrative come true.
Re: (Score:2)
The US could only intervene if they had a status similar to Taiwan.
Or similar to Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, ...
Re: (Score:3)
A bigger problem for Jinping is the One Road initiative is starting to cost real money and appear to becoming a boondoggle. The Cadres will accept any shaft in a delicate place except losing money. However, as long as their dystopian 1984 state still controls the whips of power, the rest of China can do nothing except meekly hope not to be screwed. There won't be a revolution in China unless the Cadres start to believe they can make more money without the CCP.
Re: (Score:3)
The Chinese government would practically have to commit a crime against humanity.
They already are.
The short version [bbc.co.uk] outlining the BBC's limited investigations into China's reeducation camps for the Uighur population of Xinjiang, and if you have access to their tv programs [bbc.co.uk], here's a few on the subject, and they're damn troubling.
Forced mass incarceration on the basis that they might become radicalised and commit acts of terrorism, and forced reeducation, which is tantamount to brain washing when performed on a generation of kids, in order to completely extirpate / erase a culture from ex
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that Hong Kong is under Chinese sovereignty is not an obstacle, the Sino-British Joint Declaration is an international treaty and that is what China is violating her
Re: (Score:1)
. Trump could be even using this as a benefit in the trade war and is silent.
Just another confirmation of the game they are playing - they don't care about the people - it's all just about power and control in the hands of the few.
Sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As is, I can't see the Chinese regime lasting forever. Too rigid. When you have over a billion people in your country you'd better not piss them off.
China's social credit system extends control of their hydraulic empire. All nations have things like this in one form or another. The US uses access to financial services, approved identification documentation, and secret lists for the same thing.
Hydraulic empires are very stable and have to be conquered from without.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The devices can still be monitored (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless they completely disconnect the devices from the mobile network and the internet, there is a very good change the government has monitoring software installed on the device itself. Even if someone disconnects their phone from all networks, if they ever connect it back, or if their phone is seized by the government, the logs of their chats might be available to them. One step further, if they disconnect by just putting the plane in airplane mode, any spyware on the phone may re-enable the connectivity periodically to upload the logs too.
So great idea, but if widely used, the Chinese government will install spyware on devices if they haven't done that already.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not worse but easily just as bad.
There ya go! Where ya been?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
First time I've seen an NSA shill. Do they pay you more than $0.05?
Re: (Score:2)
First time I've seen an NSA shill. Do they pay you more than $0.05?
You're proving my point.
Report for Organ harvesting immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
I would, but they told me they already got their quota after harvesting your brain.
communication (Score:2, Interesting)
Being able to communicate quells revolutions .. I mean it's ironic, but increased coordination (especially by amateurs with zero experience) helps government powers fight ideas and people.
1. Communication results in centralization of forces and actions ---- much easier for the government to get at you when everyone is in the same place
2. Communication enables infiltration and spying -- how do you know who to trust?
3. Communication can result in power struggles and diminishing of resources
4. Communication r
Re: (Score:2)
1. Communication results in centralization of forces and actions ---- much easier for the government to get at you when everyone is in the same place
You are already standing there - they can already 'get you' if you come protest. With proper implementation network nodes are not indentifiable from each other.
2. Communication enables infiltration and spying -- how do you know who to trust?
Irrelevant, all messages are intended to be public (look top of post)
3. Communication can result in power struggles and diminishing of resources
Of course but its still much better than disorganized me
Re: (Score:2)
You are already standing there - they can already 'get you' if you come protest. With proper implementation network nodes are not indentifiable from each other.
They're protesting on public streets. There are plenty of other pedestrians just happening to walk the same way. Plus you can't arrest thousands of people without a correspondingly large police presence.
3. Communication can result in power struggles and diminishing of resources
Of course but its still much better than disorganized mess with no means of communication. In addition, such a networks serves a wonderful function of 'documenting the misdeeds of people in power' for the future. Acts can not simply be hidden.
But they do have means of communication already. China does not block internet access in Hong Kong. In fact it can't, since Hong Kong manages its own internet.
4. Communication results in not wanting to take actions and risks because it offers an anger release/diffusion
You already came to protests - you are seriously pissed about something and you want changes. There is a point when you can not sell someone more bullshit to 'pacify' him/her.
Not necessarily. There are some protesters willing to lay down their life, and some who'd take $200 to go away. Also, not everyone in the protest want
Re: (Score:1)
but there are instances of democracies cracking down on protests, such as Occupy Wall Street [wikipedia.org].
that's not a real democracy, but we could call it 'feudemocracy'. Its somewhere between democracy and feudalism, and its moving in direction of the 2nd one currently.
How about Switzerland and their 'direct democracy'? Why is that model not more widespread, are people really that easily manipulated by various fairytales to walk into feudalism.
Or have all countries in the world that 'appear succesful' a darker 'inconvenient truth'-side to them? Like the western countries exploiting the east economicall
Re: (Score:2)
How about Switzerland and their 'direct democracy'? Why is that model not more widespread, are people really that easily manipulated by various fairytales to walk into feudalism.
Direct democracy would need some checks and balances to work. If nothing is stopping the people from voting themselves a huge check from the government, at the cost of the government's future financial solvency, then eventually they will do it. Maybe not in the good years, but in a deep recession. Plus, people are not usually well equipped to make many decisions. In my state, there was a ballot measure to approve a $9 billion bond for water-related infrastructure. Well $9 billion is a lot, but are the dams
not true, can be blocked (Score:3, Interesting)
can be blocked trivially with devices the Chinese military has when the government decides to stop monitoring it as they are doing at present.
Re: (Score:1)
1.EMP? Time to put your device in faraday cage and use external antenna.
2. Making phones illegal? Riiight, because making things illegal always solves the issue haha.
3. wait i know, you can always start simply shooting at the crowd and kill everyone. That will teach them 'democracy and freedom of speech' !
Re: (Score:1)
Most govs over decades can scan most frequencies in their nations looking for international spies.
A lot of poople using consumer networks and software?
Not beyond any advanced nation to "collect it all"
Then play it back under every CCTV network.
China has decades to find everyone who was networked for a month
Even if all the crypto holds, the time and location will not
Re: (Score:1)
AC its all going over approved gov networks.
Not 'approved gov networks', from the original article https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com]
The app can connect people via standard Bluetooth across an entire city, thanks to a mesh network. Chatting is speediest with people who are close, of course, within a hundred meters (330 feet), but you can also chat with people who are farther away. Your messages will simply "hop" via other Bridgefy users' phones until they find your intended target.
Even if all the crypto holds, the time and location will not :)
All the transmissions are public and by design no way to find out who was original sender. If they find received messages on your phone it only shows you were nearby there. Thats assuming you don't hide & encrypt them ( yeah yeah, rubber hose cryptanalysis..)
Re: (Score:1)
If people can buy a device and use it in their nation, the gov approved that method of "Bluetooth" networking
A short distance won't stop a gov from trying to collect it all in a city setting AC
Re "no way to find out who was original sender."
CCTV and other methods of connecting movement to time and "Bluetooth" use will show who was in the area
Re: (Score:3)
not an extraordinary claim at all. very old mature tech. Look up ECM in military related sites or start in wikipedia. works extraordinarily well on digital things with low power, known limited set of frequencies such as wifi. That can be utterly jammed trivially. Any ham knows this too.
Re: (Score:1)
Intentional communications jamming is usually aimed at radio signals to disrupt control of a battle. A transmitter, tuned to the same frequency as the opponents' receiving equipment and with the same type of modulation, can, with enough power, override any signal at the receiver. Digital wireless jamming for signals such as Bluetooth and WiFi is possible with very low power.
So the $government would need to install jammer towers all over the city which i assume would not stand https://www.abc.net.au/news/20... [abc.net.au] very long. Also doesn't switching to alternate frequency defeat the jammer? Or at very least enable communication but at reduced rate if jammer does that too.
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly what ECM aircraft are for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The militaries of all major world powers have mobile ECM gear in trucks, planes, helicopters, ships. Very mature tech that took off starting in WW II.
That's an idea you suggest, positing that after blocking the usual 2.4 and 5 GHz channels they might go to new channels Possible but then ECM can take out whole bands, they really could block out anything wifi chips could do. They can passively monitor too, and selectively interfere, wild stuff and fun reading.
Seems prone to Man in the Middle hacking (Score:1)