4 ms·
NSA sends drone strikes on people and villages based on metadata. How do I use Signal without exposing metadata to Google? It's metadata what counts, not conten
by akerro 11y ago
NSA sends drone strikes on people and villages based on metadata. How do I use Signal without exposing metadata to Google? It's metadata what counts, not content. So why hide context and purposely expose all metadata to Google and NSA?
- qznc 11y agoNobody figured out how to hide meta data yet given the requirements. P2P is not practical on mobile, because it eats your battery and data plan. Thus, client-server is a requirement. Federation is a problem for non-technical users, because it makes the app more complicated.
- pdkl95 11y ago> Federation is a problem for non-technical users Then teach them so it isn't a problem. Also, I want to see proof that federation is a problem for users, because most people seem to handle email addresses just fine. The resistance to federation is primarily from users, it's from business that want to control a protocol as middle-men. > it makes the app more complicated So? Federation is necessary. Leaving it out simply creates yet another centralized solution that can be targeted by businesses and/or governments. Saying "Security and freedom are complicated, so we left that feature out" is not a solution.
- nickik 11y agoTeaching people is incredibly hard and usually does not work. For years and years we have tried teaching people about gpg and it has done nothing. Its also incredibly difficult to make federation work, amd even harder when you want to hidemeta data. I am sure OWS would love to develop solutions for all of those, but they simply do not have time for it, not because the want to protect their costumers. Its opensource, and you can send them a pull request where you solve federation. Currently you sound like an intiteled brat who does not understand the concept of time constraints.
- Natanael_L 11y agoIdeally everybody would have home servers. My server would be what my phone connects through for everything, and the server would deal with anonymization over P2P networks when necessary.
- nickik 11y agoDepends on what you mean by 'ideally'. That approch would not be ideal in terms of resources and time wasted. It would also not be ideal in terms of how well such a system would work. One could also go one step further and require everybody to host a tor hidden service. I think federation with advanced metadata hidding would be great and that should be the goal, but the idea that everybody runs a server would not be part of my goal.
- Natanael_L 11y agoWhat's the problems you see with it? Much of it could be entirely autoconfigured.
- nickik 11y agoWell, it all sounds nice in theory, but nothing is that easy in practice. People don't have computer that are always one. Do you want to run it on peoples routers? That will be hard/impossible. Even if you imagen that everbody has their own server, they would not have very good uptime. What do you do with the messages? Updating potentially millions of server to new version of protocol is hard. Devloping a protocol that is both backwards compatible and secure is very hard. Just look at Bitcoin for all the problem peer-to-peer networks have. Something as simpel as chinas firewall causes a hole lot of problems. I would really like to see federation, but even then I don't think 99% of users should run their own servers.
- Natanael_L 11y agoMultiserver federation? The user's own server is the primary one, with a 3rd party one used as a backup. Much of this can be solved with delegation of tasks.
- qznc 11y agoWhatsApp introduced encryption. People only got a short message, which you could tap for more information. People were confused.