Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features

docs.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 242 posts

Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features

#31

Post by enitihas »

singhrac wrote: post #12

Does anyone know what supports E2E encrypted video? (Great doc btw)

WhatsApp does, atleast their doc says so. https://faq.whatsapp.com/en/android/28030015/ ( So as we’ve introduced more features – like video calling and Status – we’ve extended end-to-end encryption to these features as well.)

Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features

#33

Post by enitihas »

John_KZ wrote: post #25

There still isn't a popular messaging and voice call platform that supports private end-to-end encryption by default. How terrible is this? I mean it would be so trivial to establish a secure and private communications standard. Europe and North America has a population of almost a billion people combined. If 500 millions of those live in first-world conditions and only 1% cares about privacy, with $1/year worth of g…

Doesn't WhatsApp do that? (https://faq.whatsapp.com/en/android/28030015/)

Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features

#35

Post by stephen_g »

John_KZ wrote: post #25

There still isn't a popular messaging and voice call platform that supports private end-to-end encryption by default. How terrible is this? I mean it would be so trivial to establish a secure and private communications standard. Europe and North America has a population of almost a billion people combined. If 500 millions of those live in first-world conditions and only 1% cares about privacy, with $1/year worth of g…

Signal does voice calls and is all end to end by default. I guess 'popular' is the operative word here, but at least in tech circles it is...

Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features

#36

Post by fyfy18 »

vader1 wrote: post #27
Zash wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These ones perhaps? https://conversations.im/ https://conversejs.org/ https://dino.im/

Yes, Conversations (Android) and ConverseJS (web) are on par with - or better than - the commercial apps like Whatsapp. On ios, Chatsecure is pretty close.

Didn't realise there were so many, I guess XMPP isn't dead after all. Also worth mentioning Zom is a fork of the Chatsecure (on iOS) and Conversations (on Android) with a more UX focussed interface. https://zom.im

Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features

#37

Post by lucideer »

As there's pretty obvious bias showing in the values, some methodology would be good to accompany this sheet.

e.g.

- Telegram: E2E Private: TRUE

- WhatsApp: E2E Private: CLAIMED

These are either both "true", or both "claimed". Pick one.

In particular, what's the definition of the "Open Spec" column? Signal's GPL spec gets a FALSE here so I'm presuming the definition is something along the lines of "Spec produced by one ofa group of arbitrarily approved bodies of which Open Whisper is not a member"

Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features

#38

Post by codemusings »

enitihas wrote: post #33
John_KZ wrote: post #25

There still isn't a popular messaging and voice call platform that supports private end-to-end encryption by default. How terrible is this? I mean it would be so trivial to establish a secure and private communications standard. Europe and North America has a population of almost a billion people combined. If 500 millions of those live in first-world conditions and only 1% cares about privacy, with $1/year worth of g…

Doesn't WhatsApp do that? ( https://faq.whatsapp.com/en/android/28030015/ )

If I recall correctly Facebook has plans to end E2E encryption in order to serve personalized ads.
Post reply on HN