181–190 of 206 posts
I was wondering, what would happen, if I would add all the phone numbers from the Facebook leak to my contacts. Did anybody try something like this? What is the upper contact limit?
answer is in the paper
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a bit unfair. I value privacy for some things but for other things I value more not losing my message history. Telegram is not as secure as other options by default, but for me it strikes a good balance between convenience/usability and privacy, as I can optionally open a self-destroying secret chat when I need it.
With Matrix you get privacy with message history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can acquire BTC anonymously, then you can acquire prepaid virtual credit cards anonymously. Most localbitcoins exchangers will happily do bank transfers for you without asking any questions either. There's not many kinds of payments which aren't fairly easy to do anonymously.
Any recommendation on prepaid virtual credit cards which are accepted in EU?
These guys must be making insane amounts of money, would love to build a competitor.
Wire (from the creators of Skype) does not mandate a mobile phone number (SIM cards are tied to government identity in many countries). Only an email address is required to open a free account. Nor does Wire mandate upload of your phone's address book with personal social graph of contacts. Free for consumers with paid teams offering for enterprises, optional on-prem server. Open-source clients and server. Cross-devi…
I'm amazed that they still don't have any kind of 2FA after nearly four years. https://github.com/wireapp/wire/issues/85
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The system does have a "screw you, never" option for all permissions. The issue is that Snapchat (in your case, as I don't have this happen on v11.23.3.36) is told that they wont get the permission and wont be able to ask for it either. And so they perform their own inhouse permission request to you. There is nothing that can be done from the system's point of view for that.
> v11.23.3.36 v11.25.0.29 Beta for me > in house permission request That's what I had feared. I'd expand the scope of "the system" to include Play store rules.
Why they haven't done so already is a mystery to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you think if a notorious terrorist or whatever moved millions of dollars through Monero to fund a terror attack, American or other intelligence agencies wouldn't be able to identify the transaction? It could be done truly anonymously when up against the full weight and might of US, Western, Israeli etc intelligence budgets and methods?
Well the sender, receiver and the amounts are all hidden, so yes. I should still note that it isn't a magic bullet, and that things you do in connection to the monero blockchain can obviously still give the authorities an idea of what you are doing.
Etc etc. My point is that anonymous is an ideal, not a absolutist reality.
Every time I open the Snapchat Android app it prompts me with a Snapchat-styled (not the system) dialog to share my contacts. Every time I hit "Don't allow". Every time it prompts me again. This is an inexcusable dark pattern. Two things need to happen: 1. The operating system needs to provide a "screw you, never" option for any permissions. 2. We as engineers need to say "screw you, never" to requests to implement b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In time I expect all OSes (mobile and desktop) How much time? This has been a thing in one form or another since j2me. Some j2me platforms actually supported this kind of behavior, but that was all lost once Android and iOS came along. Same with fine-grained permissions over network access (eg, user having complete control over what networks/etc an app can access). We /had/ all of this in the days of BlackBerry, an…
I didn't know that (Blackberry). I would like to know about it, if you have any links.
This link has some screenshots and gives an idea of the capabilities. Adblock recommended:
https://crackberry.com/blackberry-101-application-permission...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Matrix is no app. Matrix an open protocol for decentralized communication that works through federation. Further, there is a alternative server implementation: Conduit. What main selling point are you talking about?
If you make a device (say, wireless walkie-talkie) that can communicate with other devices of this type, it is not yet an open standard protocol. It's just your proprietary thingy that you do with some communication properties. Same thing here. It's a product of one commercial company, which fully decides how it works. Conduit is not finished, and, given the monolytic nature of matrix protocol (as opposed to XMPP, by…
True, but this isn't the case. The device you are talking about is Element, which uses the protocol. Here you can find the protocol: https://spec.matrix.org/unstable/
It is an open standard.
> Same thing here. It's a product of one commercial company, which fully decides how it works.
You, again, conflate Matrix with Element, which btw. does not fully decide how it works. Read more about that here: https://matrix.org/foundation/
> Conduit is not finished, and, given the monolytic nature of matrix protocol (as opposed to XMPP, by the way) it will likely never be finished. Even on it's GitHub page it writes with big big letters: DO NOT RELY ON IT.
Conduit is a server of a competing entity. I didn't claim it was finished or will ever be finished in the way that there won't be any development any more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
mind explaining how Matrix is not decentralized?
What they mean is that there is a client/server separation. Truly decentralised systems don't have this distinction and only have communicating nodes. Though this is coming to Matrix too.