Does Path have any interest at all in making money so they can, ya know, become a real business? Or are they just another participant in the big-VC social network app ponzi scheme?
Talk – Smart, Private Messaging
11–20 of 40 posts
Re: Talk – Smart, Private Messaging
#12If they really took our privacy seriously, they'd have a retention period of zero instead of 24 hours.
If they really took privacy seriously they wouldn't be able to decipher the message even as it passed through their servers. There are already apps that make end-to-end encryption user friendly (Telegram comes to mind).
Re: Talk – Smart, Private Messaging
#13If they really took our privacy seriously, they'd have a retention period of zero instead of 24 hours.
If they really took privacy seriously they wouldn't be able to decipher the message even as it passed through their servers. There are already apps that make end-to-end encryption user friendly (Telegram comes to mind).
Supposedly Apple can't decipher iMessages:
http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/27/apple-explains-exactly-how-...
Re: Talk – Smart, Private Messaging
#14If they really took our privacy seriously, they'd have a retention period of zero instead of 24 hours.
If they really took privacy seriously they wouldn't be able to decipher the message even as it passed through their servers. There are already apps that make end-to-end encryption user friendly (Telegram comes to mind).
Even iMessage uses end-to-end encryption. It's a pretty poor sign if it's less secure than the service already built into the phone.
(And yeah I know iMessage isn't open source and so this is difficult to verify, but "Talk" isn't open either. Apple published a big PDF about how they do encryption - if this were proved to be false it would destroy all trust in Apple forever, so I believe what they say.)
Big PDF: http://images.apple.com/ipad/business/docs/iOS_Security_Feb1... (See page 20)
tl;dr: "Apple does not log messages or attachments, and their contents are protected by end-to-end encryption so no one but the sender and receiver can access them. Apple cannot decrypt the data."
Re: Talk – Smart, Private Messaging
#15Does anyone know the reasoning behind this? Off the feature list, it seems like it has little more to offer than Whatsapp, and easy worse platform support..
Re: Talk – Smart, Private Messaging
#16Maybe I don't understand, but why even have messages retained on the server at all? Couldn't the local app keep them stored on the phone? Also, does anyone know if they're encrypted at all. In this day and age isn't that a requirement for them to be considered private?
What if the other phone is off at the time? You kind of need a server to act as a buffer. No reason why it couldn't be client side encrypted though... iMessage does that.
Re: Talk – Smart, Private Messaging
#17"Deleted from our server" assumes the user has no understanding of data forensics. We really need TextSecure on iOS soon to stop the proliferation of all of these silly privacy apps. There needs to be a strong cross-platform alternative.
How about Wickr?
Re: Talk – Smart, Private Messaging
#18Does anyone know the reasoning behind this? Off the feature list, it seems like it has little more to offer than Whatsapp, and easy worse platform support..
They also acquired TalkTo, a startup that lets you chat to business. The ability to talk to your friends using Talk is just a trojan horse to connecting you with businesses later on, where real money would be made.
Re: Talk – Smart, Private Messaging
#19Does Path have any interest at all in making money so they can, ya know, become a real business? Or are they just another participant in the big-VC social network app ponzi scheme?
I addressed this in another comment, but the ability to message businesses that they are rolling out in the summer would be their gateway to actually making money (businesses want to hear feedback about themselves but there aren’t many solutions that address this well yet).
Re: Talk – Smart, Private Messaging
#20If they really took our privacy seriously, they'd have a retention period of zero instead of 24 hours.
I think the reasoning they are shooting for 24 is because their application seems to be based around contextual conversation. Having a retention period of zero pretty much eliminates context. Apps like Snapchat, deleting the message as soon as it's viewed, wouldn't work when you want to apply a ton of context in the conversation. Too often I'm having a "conversation" on Snapchat but it's more like small snippets of t…
They're referring to retention on the server, not the phone I believe. The phone could store the message indefinitely even if the server didn't. The server just needs to hold it long enough for your device (devices?) to download it.