101–110 of 298 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Keybase is not really a social network. It feels much more like a sort PKI with a Slack client on top of it. The focus seems very much on Teams. However they could go into more of a social network direction, the features are basically there.
is it for profit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Signal Protocol is one of the best documented cryptographic message protocols on the planet, and is accompanied by multiple GPL'd implementations. https://signal.org/docs/
And Moxie disallows people from building third-party clients for the server where 99% of Signal users are on, and without that, group chats aren’t useful.
This is freakin' awesome: A non-profit foundation with $50 million in the bank dedicated to providing usable encryption to the general public, with no other agenda other than the public good. Go read the blog post by Moxie and Brian Acton (who is joining Signal). Very exciting!
Sigh, trust is hard after the crypto wars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A null vision. Moxie is against federation, and he's against interoperable clients. https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/ https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37
I don't think he's against federation, it just doesn't make sense to federate an experiment. Once you've got something really really really solid, then it does make sense. They've been able to iterate their protocol really fast thanks to it not being an RFC or something.
> Early on, I thought we’d federate Signal once its velocity had subsided. Now I realize that things will probably never slow down, and if anything the velocity of the entire landscape seems to be steadily increasing.
> You're free to use our source code for whatever you would like under the terms of the license, but you're not entitled to use our name or the service that we run. If you think running servers is difficult and expensive (you're right), ask yourself why you feel entitled for us to run them for your product.
Since you are in the US how do you keep the US government from interfering with your mission because Signal uses strong encryption? How do you address the EARs (Export Administration Regulations) and ITARs (International Traffic in Arms Regulations)? These regulations look like a tar pit to me.
Chrome, Firefox and IE ship with very strong encryption (128 bit AES) just fine for many years now. That cat is out of the bag.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope they eventually develop a federated , privacy oriented messaging protocol, once the rapid technological evolution settles down. I know Moxie's position on federated protocols [1], but I think we must eventually agree that an open environment with a multitude of providers and implementations is the only way to provide long term privacy - any single provider is vulnerable. It would also be a very useful tool in…
> I hope they eventually develop a federated, privacy oriented messaging protocol, once the rapid technological evolution settles down. Like matrix[1]? That uses signals encryption. [1] https://matrix.org/
This is very very good news. As a heavy Signal user, from where I sit I personally see the following clear needs: -Better group support. Right now, to do a group in Signal you have to name the group, which makes it kind of a pain to create ad hoc quick groups. I'm forever naming them "John Sue Bill" or "Jane Roger Amanda". iMessage, by contrast, just automatically makes a group without a name. You get a thread for th…
Signal has no per-group notification settings Yes it has, at least on Android. Within a group, press the three-dots-menu on top and choose mute notifications. You can choose for how long they shall be muted, similarly to other apps. Adding to your list: - Working backups for text and media.
1. That can be minimized to the system tray.
2. That can be used when behind an http proxy server.
3. Doesn't require a phone to use.
4. Doesn't take 200MB ram to run.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope they eventually develop a federated , privacy oriented messaging protocol, once the rapid technological evolution settles down. I know Moxie's position on federated protocols [1], but I think we must eventually agree that an open environment with a multitude of providers and implementations is the only way to provide long term privacy - any single provider is vulnerable. It would also be a very useful tool in…
Users don’t want federation. See also: Adoption failure of Google Talk XMPP, massive adoption of Facebook Messenger and Whatsapp, and AIM before it. I wish it were different, too.
Apparently WhatsApp still use xmpp, but afaik also never supported federation.
Aim didn't allow federation.
So I'm not sure what you're trying to say?
You could claim the rotting corpse of duckduckgo's xmpp service is evidence that users don't want federation - but I thinks more just an example of a mis-managed service.
[ed: the other two obvious examples of users do seem to want federation is the rise of irc despite many architectural flaws, and the continued popularity of email.]