Live data from Hacker News

Reflections: The ecosystem is moving

whispersystems.org

41–50 of 103 posts

Re: Reflections: The ecosystem is moving

#41
post #38
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Signal exists Only if you have an Android device with a mobile phone number.

Signal does not require an Android device.

So how can I run it?

Difficulty: the only hardware I own is my desktop that runs a custom Linux.

Re: Reflections: The ecosystem is moving

#42
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that Signal exists, and I can use it every day with friends and coworkers, is evidence that we are not locked in. No one is making money from Signal, and anyone who uses Signal can switch to any of ten different (less secure) apps in five minutes. And if Signal goes away or whatever, we can build our own! The only thing stopping us is that we are a lot worse at designing crypto than Moxie and Trevor ;)

You cannot use it with EVERYONE though, can you? Signal requires Google Play Services and is refusing to remove that dependency - leaving out all those users who cannot install Google Play Services, either for privacy reasons (as moxie calls them: "cryptonerds") or because they live in countries where Google is banned (all of China for example). LibreSignal folks are willing to do the work for removing that dependenc…

I'm an outsider, so I'd like to make sure I understand this...

So moxie here is claiming to offer the superlative encrypted communication service. On the other hand, he's insisting on a hard dependency that not only compromises privacy, but locks out one of the biggest emerging markets?

Re: Reflections: The ecosystem is moving

#43
> An open source infrastructure for a centralized network now provides almost the same level of control as federated protocols, without giving up the ability to adapt.

That's simply not true. Unless you're Google/Facebook/Apple/Amazon, you'll be unable to get anyone to use your centralized network. Which makes it worse than useless. "Build it and they will come" doesn't work in a world of walled gardens, curated content and censorship.

Re: Reflections: The ecosystem is moving

#44

Nonsense, the www is not stuck in the 90's. Browsers adapt, compete and innovate. And err http is at 2.0. The fact that gopher didn't kick off does not rubbish the idea of common protocols in the first place.

HTTP is used for far more than just browsers. how broad is the current adoption of HTTP 2.0? Will there ever be a time when all HTTP clients, servers, proxies, etc will have upgraded to 2.0 - clearly that's never going to happen in the foreseeable future so we're stuck in a mishmash of supporting HTTP 1.x and HTTP 2.x clients and server software indefinitely - similar to XMPP extensions the article refers to. It's obviously much faster to innovate and update all clients when you have control over a centralized network and auto-updating clients.

Re: Reflections: The ecosystem is moving

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was using Signal, too. One day it phoned home, got some new instructions from its creators, refused to work any longer, and demanded that I download an upgrade. I was not excited about this, since upgrades generally break things, but after a few days of grumbling I knuckled under. Sure enough, the upgrade is broken: it insists that I have to upgrade Google Play Services, which I can't do, because I deleted it along…

Wisper's arguement here is basicly: you don't matter, and we arn't going to do anything to help you. And due to their walled garden, you can't do anything to help yourself either. so much for "open source infrastructure for a centralized network now provides almost the same level of control as federated protocols" Unless you mean control for Google.

I see where you're coming from but I think you're being too harsh. I don't know Moxie personally, but he's been out there fighting the good fight since the '90s - I have a vague and possibly erroneous memory of having encountered him on the old cypherpunks list, back during the dawn of time. While I have had a frustrating experience with Signal, I have nothing but respect for Moxie's skill and his commitment to secure, private communication. Engineering is hard, everything is a tradeoff; I'm certain that nobody involved with Signal has any intention whatsoever of trying to sell us out to Google. They're undoubtedly looking at a complicated problem and trying to do a good job with it. It just happens that their particular choices aren't working for me.

Re: Reflections: The ecosystem is moving

#48

So: I was the other side of the email conversation that Moxie alludes to in this post, so I'll respond to it here given comments are disabled on the OWS blog :) 1. Totally agreed that federation slows down evolution of the core protocol. However, higher level protocols do NOT have to be stuck in time forever in the manner of SMTP if you design them with a migration/evolution strategy from the outset. For instance, wi…

> If I don't trust Signal to host my communication reliably, I want to pick my own provider... whilst still being able to talk to other Signal users.

I couldn't agree more. And it's not just a matter of trusting the host. It's a matter of trusting and liking the clients. If e-mail were hotmail only, I'd hate it. But it's not. E-mail is thousands of clients on dozens of operating systems, which can all talk to each other. Signal, hah, it doesn't even work on my phone, and there aren't even dozens of phone operating systems out there.

Re: Reflections: The ecosystem is moving

#49
post #10

I totally get this; federation is hard , and its so much easier and nicer ─ as a developer ─ to have a centralised service. Often centralisation is the right choice for a particular project, and I respect that. That doesn't mean we should give up trying to federate things, though. The major upside (for me) to federated systems is simple: choice . Choice over the client you use. Choice over the servers you use. Choice…

> The major upside (for me) to federated systems is simple: choice. Choice over the client you use. Choice over the servers you use. Choice. For something so fundamental as how we communicate over the internet that's incredibly important. I want to be able to use the app I want without having to figure out if the other person is using the same app, and i don't want to have to have 10 different apps on my phone just t…

There’s middle ground between the extremely loose coordination of XMPP and one client, one server, one network.

Open Whisper Systems pays people to work on Signal. A major reason XMPP video chat never took off is that no popular Windows client supported it. What if the XMPP Software Foundation had funded that work?

Re: Reflections: The ecosystem is moving

#50
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's precisely the fact that Moxie is so credible on this topic that makes his post so frustrating. I believe that he's telling the truth as he sees it, and I believe that he's as well-situated as anyone could be to pull off a white-hat secure messaging system, so if he says it can't be done with federation, it's awfully hard for me to assert that he's wrong. The problem is that I don't see the point of doing any of…

I hesitate to get all Clay Shirkey here, but I think this is fundamentally different from media conglomerates and Bell Systems, given that now anyone has the ability to build their own overlay service with relatively minimal investment. Part of what I've been noticing is that we have these "walled gardens" today that people consider to be synonymous with "lock in," but it's actually easier for people to move from Vib…

Okay, I guess I see some value there. The problem is that my motivation is fundamentally political, and centralized services are basically autocracies. I suppose it's a good thing that people can emigrate more easily now, thereby forcing dictators to compete with each other to attract subjects - but I wasn't looking for a benevolent dictatorship, I wanted us to kick the whole hierarchy over and use our shiny new communication tools to organize a happy self-regulating democracy. What frustrates me about your article is not that I think you're wrong, because I don't have sufficient knowledge to make such a claim: what bugs me is the fear that you're right, which would mean that we failed to get the job done and now the window of opportunity has closed. I guess a more benevolent dictatorship is an improvement, but it's a sufficiently small improvement that it leaves me feeling like the last 15 or so years of Internet development were basically a waste of time.
Post reply on HN