Of course they did.
Snapchat Employees Abused Data Access to Spy on Users
41–50 of 54 posts
Re: Snapchat Employees Abused Data Access to Spy on Users
#42I understand that centralized systems are much more efficient than P2P when it comes to high bandwidth communication. But as of today, it would be possible to create a completely decentralized Snapchat (signed ephemeral videos that are shared between two parties). The routing would be the only non-trivial component of this, but it could be solved with a DHT. Why do we continue to trade convenience for privacy? Such a…
You can have e2e encryption and authentication in centralized systems, p2p is not really needed for it. See Signal for example.
> but it could be solved with a DHT
I think that tox is the solution to what you are asking for.
Re: Snapchat Employees Abused Data Access to Spy on Users
#43I understand that centralized systems are much more efficient than P2P when it comes to high bandwidth communication. But as of today, it would be possible to create a completely decentralized Snapchat (signed ephemeral videos that are shared between two parties). The routing would be the only non-trivial component of this, but it could be solved with a DHT. Why do we continue to trade convenience for privacy? Such a…
One big reason is battery life. I don't want my mobile device to have to rely on the reliability of another party to transmit. If the other party can't receive at the moment, my phone has to do a lot of work to figure that out and periodically retry sending in a graceful fashion. With a server I am guaranteed that as long as my phone has connectivity, my message will eventually be received, and it only takes as much…
Fair point. This problem could be alleviated by @InflatableDodo's comment of using other nodes (devices) on the network to cache the video, so even if the sender went offline, another node could make the connection with the recipient when they are both online. Sort of like seeding a torrent, except in this case, the video gets wiped upon confirmed receipt.
Of course, this is more viable if this gains a large network.
Re: Snapchat Employees Abused Data Access to Spy on Users
#44I understand that centralized systems are much more efficient than P2P when it comes to high bandwidth communication. But as of today, it would be possible to create a completely decentralized Snapchat (signed ephemeral videos that are shared between two parties). The routing would be the only non-trivial component of this, but it could be solved with a DHT. Why do we continue to trade convenience for privacy? Such a…
Value (valuation) is proportional to cashflows and decentralized systems have decentralized cashflows
Re: Snapchat Employees Abused Data Access to Spy on Users
#45I understand that centralized systems are much more efficient than P2P when it comes to high bandwidth communication. But as of today, it would be possible to create a completely decentralized Snapchat (signed ephemeral videos that are shared between two parties). The routing would be the only non-trivial component of this, but it could be solved with a DHT. Why do we continue to trade convenience for privacy? Such a…
You can have e2e encryption and authentication in centralized systems, p2p is not really needed for it. See Signal for example. > but it could be solved with a DHT I think that tox is the solution to what you are asking for.
Agreed, I think I made the leap to decentralization primarily for resilience. Tox looks great, I'm gonna try it out, thanks!
Re: Snapchat Employees Abused Data Access to Spy on Users
#46Complying with legal requests, fighting child pornography is not optional. Unless you are of course Mastodon etc. I don’t understand the article it quotes unnamed “former” employees who might very well could have been the ones who got fired for improper access.
Can you explain your statement about Mastodon? I’m out of the loop on that one
Re: Snapchat Employees Abused Data Access to Spy on Users
#47What is always strange is how everyone expects the default is this Not happening. People are often bored and nosy and if given the opportunity, they will spy on each other. All primates do this.
Re: Snapchat Employees Abused Data Access to Spy on Users
#48What is always strange is how everyone expects the default is this Not happening. People are often bored and nosy and if given the opportunity, they will spy on each other. All primates do this.
well… clearly employees Should Not do this.
Here's what you aren’t seeing, if I may: Consumers see the end product. They intuit rules based on what they see. I only see pictures and videos sent to me, and then they are gone. From this their mental model becomes No one can see media that is not sent to them, and the media is gone after it has been seen. This is strikingly different from the way a developer at Snapchat models the world: We run a big warehouse full of data and media. We present this media to users based on logic that prevents arbitrary non-admin users from seeing others' content and from experiencing that content repeatedly. Oh, and we should eventually get around to writing that cronjob to delete old media. And once we rule the world, we can spend time playing with end-to-end encryption, maybe.
People aren’t stupid (mostly). They are just ignorant (in the literal sense). They are extrapolating in a way that makes sense in a physical world but not in the digital world.
The clearest analogy is that of actual dice vs. video gambling or the virtual spinner in a free-to-play game. With actual dice, what you see is what you get: fair odds. But that virtual wheel is 'weighted' to end on the worthless prize right after the jackpot space nearly every time.
Re: Snapchat Employees Abused Data Access to Spy on Users
#49Complying with legal requests, fighting child pornography is not optional. Unless you are of course Mastodon etc. I don’t understand the article it quotes unnamed “former” employees who might very well could have been the ones who got fired for improper access.
Can you explain your statement about Mastodon? I’m out of the loop on that one
i think the implication is that a platform need not police its content if it is truly p2p and not actually storing or responsible for the content on it. with mastodon, the company is not running the servers people connect to in order to use mastodon, iirc.