11–20 of 115 posts
Yikes > We tested this malformed audio packet dispatch at various points during a voice call and consistently watched all malformed audio packets dropped by the server, which means that Discord servers are actively decrypting and inspecting all audio/video communications in real-time and not just some.
Yikes > We tested this malformed audio packet dispatch at various points during a voice call and consistently watched all malformed audio packets dropped by the server, which means that Discord servers are actively decrypting and inspecting all audio/video communications in real-time and not just some.
1. Applying a censor to voice depending on server/user DM configuration. I know they've got some kind of OCR that tries to identify and block offensive words contained in images, such as the N word, when people are not friends and at least one side hasn't changed the “safe direct messaging” option down to “I live on the edge”. 2. Store records at least temporarily for law enforcement.
And the obvious other things are keeping for post-processing and derive user interests for advertising, or batching and forwarding the information to intelligence agencies.
It's hard to tell, realy.
The problem is... There still isn't a clear business model for discord, the advantages of having premium (nitro) are almost non-existing. That's not an excuse for privacy, I know... They tried to create a small competitor to Steam's game marketplace but it didn't work out. They're back to the drawing table. Honestly, that's actually really good for free users, like myself, because we can simply use discord's wide arr…
But how can you remain super stoked by features of a service that may be decrypting your communication in real time? Does that sour the whole thing for you? If they can decrypt our communications I would think the 3 letter agencies would want to get access to it as well.
Now try to understand why the average person cares even less.
1) to improve audio quality.
2) to help prevent RCE attacks on the destination client.
3) re-encoding at lower bitrates for low bandwidth clients.
I don't really see the issue here unless Discord claimed they do not decrypt the audio.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
fuck. Is it really too much to ask for/expect a modicum of decency with these services?
When you are paying $0.00 for the service? And in this case they are dropping malformed data, which could easily protect their users from malware that exploits weaknesses in the media codecs.
This notion also does not translate very well to things which are not related to IT. I use a very large number of things in my daily life which I am not paying for but I still expect them to work and be safe. Or would be it be fine if I take an elevator and it falls down and kills me? Or whoops, I got a free candy which turned out to contain toxins. I guess I didn't pay for the service so why do I have some expectations for it to work or be safe?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you are paying $0.00 for the service? And in this case they are dropping malformed data, which could easily protect their users from malware that exploits weaknesses in the media codecs.
I find this notion that you should be absolved of all responsibilities just because you give it away for free to be completely wrong. They should still be transparent about what they are doing. This notion also does not translate very well to things which are not related to IT. I use a very large number of things in my daily life which I am not paying for but I still expect them to work and be safe. Or would be it be…
This is common and necessary for WebRTC SFUs, which perhaps is why Discord does it to support the least common denominator of their web browser based clients. Edit: Yep, I thought I remembered reading this. Their voice servers are WebRTC SFUs. So this is basically state-of-the-art when it comes to voice over WebRTC. End to end encryption in WebRTC is not possible if you are using a SFU. https://blog.discordapp.com/ho…
The problem is... There still isn't a clear business model for discord, the advantages of having premium (nitro) are almost non-existing. That's not an excuse for privacy, I know... They tried to create a small competitor to Steam's game marketplace but it didn't work out. They're back to the drawing table. Honestly, that's actually really good for free users, like myself, because we can simply use discord's wide arr…
But how can you remain super stoked by features of a service that may be decrypting your communication in real time? Does that sour the whole thing for you? If they can decrypt our communications I would think the 3 letter agencies would want to get access to it as well.
Gmail has excellent reliability, deliverability, & spam filtering. On the other hand Google gets to read all my email. Naturally then, I use Gmail for somethings- not for others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find this notion that you should be absolved of all responsibilities just because you give it away for free to be completely wrong. They should still be transparent about what they are doing. This notion also does not translate very well to things which are not related to IT. I use a very large number of things in my daily life which I am not paying for but I still expect them to work and be safe. Or would be it be…
If we're going to wander off into metaphor, this seems more analogous to a doorman refusing to allow you to bring your 800lb gorilla (sneakily dressed as your child) onto the elevator.
If you want to argue that Discords measure in this case are fair then I'm fine with that, but just something like "STFU the service is free" is not enough when it comes to these companies with massive impact on society, IMO at least.
Edit: After thinking about this a bit more, I guess the point is that if they are just dropping (potentially) malicious data, or in your case not letting a gorilla through the door. This does not have anything to do with the service being free as far as I can see, they can be argued for independently.
Instead I see people defending questionable behavior by pointing out that the service is free. And the point I tried to make originally was that I would like to at least be informed about the questionable behavior, so I have a chance to take this extra "cost" into account when I select a product.
Unless Discord claimed they were P2P encrypted this shouldn't be a witch hunt. It's the default behavior for most WebRTC systems.
The clients establish (encrypted) connections to the SFU(s). The SFU then reads incoming data and forwards it to whichever other clients are supposed to be receiving it. However, they maintain state per client and possibly do things like transcoding audio and video if the receiving client can't handle the source quality.