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

Large-Scale Abuse of Contact Discovery in Mobile Messengers [pdf]

ndss-symposium.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 206 posts

Re: Large-Scale Abuse of Contact Discovery in Mobile Messengers [pdf]

#191

Post by kitkat_new »

remram wrote: post #172
kitkat_new wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

mind explaining how Matrix is not decentralized?

As I understand it, the consensus is to call multi-server systems "federated" and peer-to-peer systems "decentralized". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_computing for references.

P2P is a form of decentralization. Your resource doesn't back up your claim.

E.g. it states: "A collection of decentralized computers systems are components of a larger computer network, held together by local stations of equal importance and capability. These systems are capable of running independently of each other." This is true for Matrix with Homeservers being the decentralized computers and the network of the same being the larger computer network.

Re: Large-Scale Abuse of Contact Discovery in Mobile Messengers [pdf]

#192

Post by hctaw »

MrDresden wrote: post #180
hctaw wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is nothing that can be done from the system's point of view for that. They can ban the app from app stores for using any non-system interface to request permissions, like they do for payments.

I am not agreeing with it, but they are showing a piece of custom ui that probably links into the settings for you to make changes. That is a very normal practice on Android. The fact that Snapchat decides that pestering the user for the permission is acceptable I find to be a very strange design decision.

It's not that strange, it's just a dark pattern. But it does touch on a specific problem with permissions interfaces.

If you have an interface that looks like "requestPermissions(...)" or something like that and have a case where users can reject permissions forever without nags, then how do you handle users who inadvertently deny permissions forever? One solution is to just nag forever, if you can.

Another workaround is to enable permissions manually through settings, but you need to make errors loud and obvious with workaround instructions and people interpret the issue as a bug in your code rather than a feature of the platform.

This is a problem on MacOS, just as an example.

Re: Large-Scale Abuse of Contact Discovery in Mobile Messengers [pdf]

#193

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

kitkat_new wrote: post #189
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. 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.…

> It is an open standard.

what's it's RFC number? which body does govern the development of this 'protocol'?

Re: Large-Scale Abuse of Contact Discovery in Mobile Messengers [pdf]

#195

Post by remram »

kitkat_new wrote: post #191
remram wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, the consensus is to call multi-server systems "federated" and peer-to-peer systems "decentralized". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_computing for references.

P2P is a form of decentralization. Your resource doesn't back up your claim. E.g. it states: "A collection of decentralized computers systems are components of a larger computer network, held together by local stations of equal importance and capability. These systems are capable of running independently of each other." This is true for Matrix with Homeservers being the decentralized computers and the network of the…

"Decentralization" referring to P2P is exactly what I said...?

If you are going to pick a tiny part of the page, you might find that it's not sufficient. In the sense of your chosen quote, Twitter is decentralized, since it runs on multiple computers organized in a network. Those are capable of running independently of each other, to a degree, if Twitter Inc did their High Availability work correctly.

It is not decentralized from a user's perspective though, since the software they use on their devices cannot run independently of the remote systems of twitter.com.

I don't know where that leaves us, but then again I don't know what you were trying to argue either.

Re: Large-Scale Abuse of Contact Discovery in Mobile Messengers [pdf]

#196

Post by kitkat_new »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #193
kitkat_new wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. 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.…

> It is an open standard. what's it's RFC number? which body does govern the development of this 'protocol'?

Open Standards don't require RFC numbers.

It's governed by the Matrix Foundation, which I have linked before

Re: Large-Scale Abuse of Contact Discovery in Mobile Messengers [pdf]

#197

Post by kitkat_new »

remram wrote: post #195
kitkat_new wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

P2P is a form of decentralization. Your resource doesn't back up your claim. E.g. it states: "A collection of decentralized computers systems are components of a larger computer network, held together by local stations of equal importance and capability. These systems are capable of running independently of each other." This is true for Matrix with Homeservers being the decentralized computers and the network of the…

"Decentralization" referring to P2P is exactly what I said...? If you are going to pick a tiny part of the page, you might find that it's not sufficient. In the sense of your chosen quote, Twitter is decentralized, since it runs on multiple computers organized in a network. Those are capable of running independently of each other, to a degree, if Twitter Inc did their High Availability work correctly. It is not decen…

Just because P2P is a form of decentralization, it does not need to be the only form of decentralization. Federation is imho another form of decentralization.

Yeah, and I agree there are different types of decentralization: e.g. physical, authority, ... or combinations

Each incarnation with different goals

Re: Large-Scale Abuse of Contact Discovery in Mobile Messengers [pdf]

#198

Post by remram »

kitkat_new wrote: post #197
remram wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Decentralization" referring to P2P is exactly what I said...? If you are going to pick a tiny part of the page, you might find that it's not sufficient. In the sense of your chosen quote, Twitter is decentralized, since it runs on multiple computers organized in a network. Those are capable of running independently of each other, to a degree, if Twitter Inc did their High Availability work correctly. It is not decen…

Just because P2P is a form of decentralization, it does not need to be the only form of decentralization. Federation is imho another form of decentralization. Yeah, and I agree there are different types of decentralization: e.g. physical, authority, ... or combinations Each incarnation with different goals

Sure, this is not the only possible way those words could be used, which is why I mentioned a "consensus". Many words can be used in ways that are "technically correct" but confusing. Like I said, by some definition Twitter is "decentralized", however it is not what anyone ever means by "decentralized".

Re: Large-Scale Abuse of Contact Discovery in Mobile Messengers [pdf]

#199

Post by godelski »

Ticklee wrote: post #90
criley2 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such thing as an anonymous transaction, for a fully informed definition of anonymous. Bitcoin isn't... neither is cash in hand. Neither is a drop. Someone knows. A discussion of 'anonymity' in this context is one of increasing the difficulty of discovery, not thinking that the discovery is impossible. If a major world government is after you, good luck with "anonymous"

Monero is.

Doesn't Monero focus on differential privacy? Meaning you have plausible deniability not anonymity. Where as something like ZCash you have to trust the seed. Did things change?

Re: Large-Scale Abuse of Contact Discovery in Mobile Messengers [pdf]

#200

Post by thomostin »

ReptileMan wrote: post #52
qwertox wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Threema also does not require your phone number.

It requires payment - so google account or your paypal/credit card are on record.

How can you get push notifications on an Android device without using Google Services?

You can just get a gift card and pay in cash for it.

Post reply on HN