381–390 of 517 posts
I'm pretty resentful that people in the US are stuck using worse/less featureful versions of products from US companies, while the government in Europe can get these kinds of concessions for their people. If a company is legally obligated to offer a feature to people in other parts of the world, they should be forced to offer it at back home in the US as well, since we can't be bothered otherwise to pass any of these…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just as good on Windows, honestly. I miss that little bird.
You all know that we're still around and have been working on the next major release for quite a while now right? You might be interested in our state of the bird posts... https://discourse.imfreedom.org/tag/state-of-the-bird
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The unfortunate problem with Pidgin is you don't have proper cross-platform E2EE chats, especially for groups. OTR is terribly outdated with its 1536-bit FFDH. These days the security margin sits at 2048-bit minimum, 3072-bit recommended. OMEMO might work but it's just not a standard. Good thing Signal made the whole thing just work.
Surely there must be someone capable of and willing to update OTR to support the latest PQC encryption protocols and ciphers. OTR is the only semi-trustable model of E2EE I have ever seen. Anything managed by the same platform managing the communication is dead in the water for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EU. I don't think it is any better at the national level however.
The EU is not a government. It's a loose economic confederation. And national European governments vary wildly in their positions on this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have lately been telling people whatsapp is from facebook (meta means nothing to them) and now they are looking for alternatives. Unfortunately, there isn't really much european/eu (never heard of birdychat though). It does show though it is not hard to get some people to switch; they have groups on whatsapp and use it for nothing else; these are people they chat with often so they only need to switch those and the…
>working on all devices makes it very nice. Signal has end-to-end encryption working on all devices. Telegram doesn't because they're amateurs.
Edit: I guess you are from Ukraine? That is valid, the CEO is fishy. I did say I would not recommend it, I said it is the only performant and easy to use chat app I know off. That was a user perspective thing and more the hope of people pointing out 'no you fool here is another good one'. Definitely not Signal, slow and unfriendly. Whatsapp a little better, but Meta. Next.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry to be "that guy", because I don't know the details of how WhatsApp does E2EE, but in any proper (as in secure and private) implementation the only thing that should matter is whether the client follows the spec? You might as well ask, how does $browser work with HTTPS?
I can confirm that you don't know. I can count 3 mistakes here: 1- The client isn't the only thing that matters (There's servers) 2- The client doesn't follow a spec in WhatsApp, there is no spec as it's a private non-interoperable system. 3- Browsers and HTTPS work with an entirely different encryption model, TLS is asymmetric, certificate based and domain based. TLS may be used in Whatsapp to some extent, but it's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's not pretend they would do this if the tech monopolies were european.
Yes, the EU would never dare to regulate European companies, for example require banks to offer free and instant person-to-person money transfers or mobile phone operators to offer data roaming at domestic rates.
SEPA normalization took forever, and even now instant transfers are still very often paid past the limit in your card bundle (probably around 3 if you don't have an expensive card).
Brussels rarely works for the little people; they just support whatever the big players at the moment want, unless they are foreign and can come up with a reason to tax them.
It is delusional to think politicians in Brussels care about the little guys; it is always about maintaining or gaining power, otherwise they wouldn't come up with absurd regulations that hit the small players much harder than any of the big ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry to be "that guy", because I don't know the details of how WhatsApp does E2EE, but in any proper (as in secure and private) implementation the only thing that should matter is whether the client follows the spec? You might as well ask, how does $browser work with HTTPS?
That's not what OP is asking, he's asking how do you have two separate e2e encrypted apps that can interact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's wrong with the name? Some cultural reference I'm not getting?
It just sounds—let's say—too playful. Specially if you go to the homepage and they're trying to market it as a work too.. If I went to my boss and tried to make the case that we should move all of our encrypted communication from Whatsapp to something called BirdyChat they would laugh at me and dismiss the idea. That might just be me, not sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, and to overcome the network effect, you need something compelling enough to justify the effort in the first place. I have hundreds of local contacts on WhatsApp, many of whom have joined Telegram on their own because of its benefits (for example, a local firefighter feed is shared through a channel there). But I only have about 20 contacts on Signal, even IT guys aren’t there. It simply doesn’t offer anything a…
>joined Telegram on their own because of its benefits Sorry, social media masquerading as a secure messaging app isn't a secure messaging app.