21–30 of 159 posts
And I thought that XMPP felt broken...
XMPP felt great when compared to Matrix. Matrix was in a bad state some years ago when I hosted it for a while, and seems like it still is the same messy state. I avoid it as much as possible but for some reason there are communities using it. At this point it should just die so people would be motivated to replace it with something better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I thought this was a weird take too. Too often people take privacy for "I can do what I like". IMO deleting something you've sent to someone else is not a privacy concern at all.
I don't agree with it myself, but there are people who seem to want to frame "the right to be forgotten" as a privacy issue.
>this also creates a situation where anything said across federation cannot be unsaid, which is an ironic situation for a protocol/system that often comes up when talking about privacy. How is it ironic? No protocol in the world can force anyone to delete anything from their own device. Chat apps that implement this function are either proprietary (so you cannot control what they can do) or, if OSS, do it on a pinky-…
Yeah I thought this was a weird take too. Too often people take privacy for "I can do what I like". IMO deleting something you've sent to someone else is not a privacy concern at all.
Can't remember what the algorithm is called.
>this also creates a situation where anything said across federation cannot be unsaid, which is an ironic situation for a protocol/system that often comes up when talking about privacy. How is it ironic? No protocol in the world can force anyone to delete anything from their own device. Chat apps that implement this function are either proprietary (so you cannot control what they can do) or, if OSS, do it on a pinky-…
But they either do not sign the messages or allow repudiating the signatures. Matrix signs all events forever.
Matrix also makes the entire event history (minus message content depending on room configuration) available to servers on join, even if that server's users are not allowed to see it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
XMPP felt great when compared to Matrix. Matrix was in a bad state some years ago when I hosted it for a while, and seems like it still is the same messy state. I avoid it as much as possible but for some reason there are communities using it. At this point it should just die so people would be motivated to replace it with something better.
People are motivated to replace it with something better, it's called Matrix 2.0.
>this also creates a situation where anything said across federation cannot be unsaid, which is an ironic situation for a protocol/system that often comes up when talking about privacy. How is it ironic? No protocol in the world can force anyone to delete anything from their own device. Chat apps that implement this function are either proprietary (so you cannot control what they can do) or, if OSS, do it on a pinky-…
>this also creates a situation where anything said across federation cannot be unsaid, which is an ironic situation for a protocol/system that often comes up when talking about privacy. How is it ironic? No protocol in the world can force anyone to delete anything from their own device. Chat apps that implement this function are either proprietary (so you cannot control what they can do) or, if OSS, do it on a pinky-…
You may have noticed the constant pushing to remove the user's access to their "own" device.
Forcing people to delete things from their own device is the whole concept of the Snapchat protocol, for example. Snapchat fortunately doesn't offer an OS and can't meaningfully be part of this push, but they make a convenient illustration.
You can check out Snapchat's bug bounty policy here: https://hackerone.com/snapchat . On the list of ineligible vulnerabilities is "screenshot detection avoidance". That's not a bug (because there's nothing they can do about it), even though it is their product's selling point.
Sometimes stronger companies want similar things, and they try to do something about it.
>this also creates a situation where anything said across federation cannot be unsaid, which is an ironic situation for a protocol/system that often comes up when talking about privacy. How is it ironic? No protocol in the world can force anyone to delete anything from their own device. Chat apps that implement this function are either proprietary (so you cannot control what they can do) or, if OSS, do it on a pinky-…
A protocol can mandate forced deletion. A particular client implementation may ignore it, or some users may circumvent it, so it would be a weaker kind of feature, but still a feature. And depending on circumstances it can be quite useful.
I want to hear more about this. Is this because Synapse’s SQLite support is half-baked? What sort of corruption are we taking about?