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

On Privacy versus Freedom

matrix.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–209 of 209 posts

Re: On Privacy versus Freedom

#201

Post by aiphee »

zzo38computer wrote: post #182

I think that protocols that are simple and open should be used, rather than very complicated and messy ones. Text-based also helps since it allows to use without specialized software. IRC is designed like this and I think it is good.

This is a very unpopular position from a security perspective. All messages should be exchanged by some type-safe structured container like protobuf to avoid a huge class of bugs that comes from quoting and odd character sets, manually implementing parsers, confusing types, and broken string arithmetic.

Re: On Privacy versus Freedom

#202

Post by amluto »

toohotatopic wrote: post #155
amluto wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO this is pure laziness on the part of the app store. Any store could just say “this app is licensed to you under the GPL — download source here.” Even ignoring licensing, I think app stores could add considerable value by offering reproducible builds. Let developers upload source, verify the has (git tree hash or plain sha256sum), and rebuild in a sandbox server-side. Reject the submission unless the binary’s hash…

Adding that license information doesn't help the end user to run modified code. You need an apple developer license to run changes that you have made. Thus, the code is not free. On the other hand, apple offering to compile and run any modification that users made will never happen. Then, people could start with one program and run whatever they want. The app store would collapse.

That doesn’t contradict my point. Apple could achieve two goals here:

1. Allowing GPL code in a lightweight and compliant manner at a essentially no cost to Apple.

2. Adding a class of free (or paid) open-source apps that are more trustworthy. If Apple could effectively replace a decent fraction of the free shitware apps on the App Store with better free, open-source apps, the value to end-users and hence the value of the platform would increase.

There is no requirement in the GPL that recipients of source code be able to run modified versions of the code on the target device.

Re: On Privacy versus Freedom

#203

Post by zelphirkalt »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #160
kitd wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 'chat' client in the style of eg WhatsApp, but based on S/MIME over SMTP/IMAP, seems perfectly doable, and appropriate for most people's needs, with the obvious advantage of being supported by traditional email clients as a fallback. Additionally, message threading is the feature I most appreciate in a messaging system, but which is painfully lacking in most products (and no, Slack doesn't cut it). SMTP has built-i…

I'm old enough to remember when this was exactly how email was used. (but using a normal email client). It was acceptable to send one-word email replies, and there were email chains of hundreds of emails (I was the guy who tended to "snip" them after 20 or replies). Now email seems to have taken over from where snail mail was: bills, newsletters, and formal communication. Chat is now the norm. Though I do notice a ge…

Yep: Direct thought transfer protocol, and people will just assume, that you are OK with them dumping their brain load full of irrelevancies and distractions into yours, unable to form a coherent thought and making an appointment, "because everyone is on TTP" (they wont know what TTP stands for though), so you are supposed to be too! And we will be "outdated", for using chat applications. "It's soooo slow!"

Re: On Privacy versus Freedom

#204

Post by Arathorn »

zaarn wrote: post #194
progval wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and it's perfectly acceptable for a Beta service. It's just too bad they don't have a single bridge that's of release quality yet, while it was their main promise.

I don't believe this is really fixable, on various occasions when I ask for the community tools I need, I get blown off and told that such features won't be implemented in Matrix or will depend on client support (which is unacceptable).

better late than never: i don’t know what community moderation tools you’re talking about here. we certainly haven’t closed the door on any moderation features in Matrix, and certainly wouldn’t make them client specific. my guess is you are conflating random feedback from randoms in matrix rooms with input from the actual matrix core team. https://matrix.org/docs/guides/moderation/ is the official moderation guide, which is evolving fairly constantly, and we have a tonne of work on communities & moderation coming up in Feb/Mar.

Re: On Privacy versus Freedom

#205

Post by Arathorn »

rakoo wrote: post #191
blindgeek wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have lots of warm and fuzzy feelings toward Matrix, but my take is that XMPP solved my basic problem over 15 years ago. The problem being: I want to talk to Alice, Bob, Mary, Jane, Fred, and Joe without having to install ICQ, AIM, and Yahoo Messenger. Or should I say Facebook, Whatsapp, and Signal? I don't know what Matrix buys me over XMPP, but at this point, I don't care. I'll gladly drink the Matrix kool-aid, as…

XMPP lost because there was no big player behind it willing to push it as far as possible under its public name. Only a community of enthusiasts and a steering committee that only cares about what is going in the next spec. Matrix at least has a company pushing for it, so there's a better chance it'll have more success than XMPP; unfortunately we'll have to wait a few more years to see the difference.

tbf there was a big player (Jabber Inc), and they sold out to Cisco. Hopefully the difference is already visible for Matrix, or if it isn’t it should be visible this year.

Re: On Privacy versus Freedom

#206

Post by Arathorn »

Meldane wrote: post #198
Arathorn wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We tend to be pretty conservative on maturity estimates on Matrix (and bad at keeping the website updated). IRC, Slack, Gitter bridges are all considered stable these days. XMPP, Discord, Telegram, WhatsApp work usably too. The UX for managing them is not always great or consistent (we’re working on that currently), but “yet another protocol with its own chatrooms” is untrue. You can certainly access the entirety of…

Hi, I am trying to write an article in French to introduce Matrix to a wider public. Especially non tech people. So I'd like to describe the possibilities accurately. Bridges are a very interesting feature, but how do you implement them ? I went to the #whatsapp:maunium.net room and only saw guys wondering the same thing with no answer given to them. I went to https://github.com/tulir/mautrix-whatsapp/wiki/Bridge-set…

https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-appservice-bridge/blob/... explains how to write them.

For adding them to a chat as a user, you need to use an integration manager (eg t2bot.io) or to run one yourself.

Re: On Privacy versus Freedom

#207

Post by Arathorn »

tptacek wrote: post #188
Arathorn wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The slow bit of Matrix’s E2E by default isn’t the roll-out; we’ll also flip the switch when we get to that point. The problem instead was that we implemented way too many pre-E2E features (serverside search, etc) and have had to reimplement them to force everyone onto E2E. So yeah, Signal’s approach to only roll out features if they’re privacy preserving is great. But it’s nothing to do with centralisation/decentrali…

Do all the Matrix clients implement the E2E functionality that exists today, the functionality people talk about when they say Matrix is E2E encrypted? If not: that's decentralization in action. Downthread, you were explaining that you're waiting to flip a switch to require E2E support for clients, and that there's a "pantalaimon" proxy service that people are going to have to use to retrofit E2E onto clients that do…

It’s pretty simple.

There are a bunch of Matrix clients from various sources, with a wide spread of features and maturity. All the commonly used ones are pretty much feature complete and support E2E. The fact others exist is because they are WIP or experiments. This is a feature not a bug.

We’re declaring that private chats (or at least DMs) must default to being E2E at end of Jan. This could screw over these WIP and experimental or venerable clients, so we provided pantalaimon as a shim daemon to help them out.

To me, this says that we can successfully evolve Matrix with massive breaking changes by providing migration paths and decent layering abstractions, despite being decentralised.

So “Do all the Matrix clients implement the E2E functionality that exists today” is not a very revealing question.

Re: On Privacy versus Freedom

#208

Post by arianvanp »

kick wrote: post #125
ex3ndr wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aha, yeah: https://github.com/signalapp/curve25519-java/issues/5

GPL doesn't prevent you from using it on mobile devices, it prevents you from making changes to his code proprietary. You seem to just want to release proprietary software. You should say that out loud if so!

That's not what OP said at all.

Apple _forces_ you to make proprietary changes to your application (and doesn't allow you to publish the source code of that modification). There is no way to have both a GPL-compliant app and have it on the app store at the same time.

Re: On Privacy versus Freedom

#209

Post by kixiQu »

tialaramex wrote: post #49
Arathorn wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some of the most basic stuff is, you believe, almost kinda sorta done. The core Matrix stuff has been usable for years, and in many ways you've had better metadata and censorship protection available than Signal - given you have the option of running your own server which could be entirely off the grid, and used only for your own conversations. However, if your point is that Matrix focuses on freedom as well as pri…

No, a hypothetical option to never communicate with anybody on the network isn't "better protection" in any meaningful sense than a system designed from the outset to actually protect you when you communicate with other people. When you say we're trying to improve I want to believe you. When you stubbornly declare "we're better" in "many ways" while actually being much worse, what could I conclude? Only that your goa…

? I'm confused. My understanding is that Matrix/Synapse has E2EE; it's just that the UX around it right now is still garbage (and that's what they're working on).
Post reply on HN