4 ms·

> 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, bec

by 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 ago
Teaching 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 ago
  Ideally 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 ago
    Depends 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 ago
      What's the problems you see with it? Much of it could be entirely autoconfigured.
      - nickik 11y ago
        Well, 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 ago
        Multiserver 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.
        nickik 11y ago
        I just dont see any reason why every user should run their own server. Is a waste of resources and time. It makes everything harder without all that much gain.
        pdkl95 11y ago
        Do you have your (physical) mail sent "general delivery"? Or do you have it sent to personal mailbox a specific address? It doesn't how much it costs[1] in resources. It is important that people have their own place that they control on the internet. You are insisting that everyone stay subservient to a central authority. This means they need an imprimatur[2] to communicate. This centralization has happened because NAT is a "party line". The lack of addresses has removed the most important feature of the internet: every host is equal in the protocol. If you have an internet address, you can publish without the permission of a third party. I'm not saying it is easy, but the power of the internet is that publishing just takes a bit of learning and effort, not the permission of a central authority or other gatekeeper. You seem to be focusing only on various technical features in your analysis, which don't actually matter. This isn't about efficiency or ease of development. This is a question of freedom: is a technology giving people more freedom, independence, and power? Or does it create another layer of middlemen with power over a fundamental feature of society? You need to decide which side you're on in that fight, because there is "no neutral ground in a burning world"[3]. [1] It isn't going to cost much; small serves are cheap and getting cheaper all the time. By definition we're talking about something that would have the benefits of mass-production. [2] https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/ https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/ [3] https://media.ccc.de/v/30C3_-_5491_-_en_-_saal_1_-_201312272300_-_no_neutral_ground_in_a_burning_world_-_quinn_norton_-_eleanor_saitta https://media.ccc.de/v/30C3_-_5491_-_en_-_saal_1_-_201312272... http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/no-neutral-ground-burning-world/ http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/no-neutral-ground-burn...
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > teaching people about gpg You're moving the goalposts. Teaching people that their chat address has a @hostname component just like their email is easy. (and gpg just needs a nice GUI front-end that makes the common cases trivial) > [it's hard] Yes it is. What you don't seem to understand is that this isn't a reason to create yet another centralized solution that promises more than it can deliver. So far every centralized communication service with true privacy has ended up either exploiting their users privacy, sold to people who don't care about privacy, or strong-armed by various powers. If you don't build in mitigation to this problem from the beginning, it will never happen. > incredibly difficult to make federation work This is complete nonsense. It's another feature that has to be taken into account, but it isn't harder than any other feature. (I would rate the crypto ratcheting protocols as "incredibly difficult" to get right, not federation) Again, if this isn't built in from the beginning, it will never happen. > Currently you sound like an intiteled[sic] brat Insults are rarely effective rhetoric. > who does not understand the concept of time constraints. I've been designing and implementing network protocols for about two decades, so I'm very aware of what's involved. I'm suggesting that protocols are hard to change once implemented. If federation isn't designed in from the beginning, then this is just another centralized system that is destined to fail. Pursuing the wrong goal is not a good use of time. > you can send them a pull request I still might.
  - nickik 11y ago
    > This is complete nonsense. I don't just mean in getting federation to work. I mean building a good network that is response to updates and adding features. A network that does not make further devlopment almsot impossible. > If you don't build in mitigation to this problem from the beginning, it will never happen. I would disgree about that. I think an incremental approche can work. I guess we will see about that.
qznc 11y ago
WhatsApp introduced encryption. People only got a short message, which you could tap for more information. People were confused.

by pdkl95 11y ago

nickik 11y ago

Teaching 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 ago
Ideally 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 ago
  Depends 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 ago
    What's the problems you see with it? Much of it could be entirely autoconfigured.
    - nickik 11y ago
      Well, 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 ago
        Multiserver 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.
        nickik 11y ago
        I just dont see any reason why every user should run their own server. Is a waste of resources and time. It makes everything harder without all that much gain.
        pdkl95 11y ago
        Do you have your (physical) mail sent "general delivery"? Or do you have it sent to personal mailbox a specific address? It doesn't how much it costs[1] in resources. It is important that people have their own place that they control on the internet. You are insisting that everyone stay subservient to a central authority. This means they need an imprimatur[2] to communicate. This centralization has happened because NAT is a "party line". The lack of addresses has removed the most important feature of the internet: every host is equal in the protocol. If you have an internet address, you can publish without the permission of a third party. I'm not saying it is easy, but the power of the internet is that publishing just takes a bit of learning and effort, not the permission of a central authority or other gatekeeper. You seem to be focusing only on various technical features in your analysis, which don't actually matter. This isn't about efficiency or ease of development. This is a question of freedom: is a technology giving people more freedom, independence, and power? Or does it create another layer of middlemen with power over a fundamental feature of society? You need to decide which side you're on in that fight, because there is "no neutral ground in a burning world"[3]. [1] It isn't going to cost much; small serves are cheap and getting cheaper all the time. By definition we're talking about something that would have the benefits of mass-production. [2] https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/ https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/ [3] https://media.ccc.de/v/30C3_-_5491_-_en_-_saal_1_-_201312272300_-_no_neutral_ground_in_a_burning_world_-_quinn_norton_-_eleanor_saitta https://media.ccc.de/v/30C3_-_5491_-_en_-_saal_1_-_201312272... http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/no-neutral-ground-burning-world/ http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/no-neutral-ground-burn...
pdkl95 11y ago
> teaching people about gpg You're moving the goalposts. Teaching people that their chat address has a @hostname component just like their email is easy. (and gpg just needs a nice GUI front-end that makes the common cases trivial) > [it's hard] Yes it is. What you don't seem to understand is that this isn't a reason to create yet another centralized solution that promises more than it can deliver. So far every centralized communication service with true privacy has ended up either exploiting their users privacy, sold to people who don't care about privacy, or strong-armed by various powers. If you don't build in mitigation to this problem from the beginning, it will never happen. > incredibly difficult to make federation work This is complete nonsense. It's another feature that has to be taken into account, but it isn't harder than any other feature. (I would rate the crypto ratcheting protocols as "incredibly difficult" to get right, not federation) Again, if this isn't built in from the beginning, it will never happen. > Currently you sound like an intiteled[sic] brat Insults are rarely effective rhetoric. > who does not understand the concept of time constraints. I've been designing and implementing network protocols for about two decades, so I'm very aware of what's involved. I'm suggesting that protocols are hard to change once implemented. If federation isn't designed in from the beginning, then this is just another centralized system that is destined to fail. Pursuing the wrong goal is not a good use of time. > you can send them a pull request I still might.
- nickik 11y ago
  > This is complete nonsense. I don't just mean in getting federation to work. I mean building a good network that is response to updates and adding features. A network that does not make further devlopment almsot impossible. > If you don't build in mitigation to this problem from the beginning, it will never happen. I would disgree about that. I think an incremental approche can work. I guess we will see about that.

qznc 11y ago

WhatsApp introduced encryption. People only got a short message, which you could tap for more information. People were confused.