5 ms·

"End to end" refers specifically to the two people involved - that is, nobody but the sender and recipient of a communication can read it. Twitter DMs happen ov

"End to end" refers specifically to the two people involved - that is, nobody but the sender and recipient of a communication can read it. Twitter DMs happen over TLS, but they're not end-to-end - Twitter knows the content of the messages.

lucb1e 9y ago
There are two people involved. To quote myself: > The server you'd be talking to in my case is physically mine, in my home, so if I'm an endpoint and someone else is an endpoint, and they have an encrypted connection to the server, for all intents and purposes, it's end to end encrypted. There are two people who can read the communications: me and whoever I'm talking to. But rather, my point was this: > Terrorists and other criminals have an interest in arranging this, and it's quite easy Setting up https is easy, and steganography is easy to do. Thus, a ban would be pointless because everyone who needs it for criminal activities, still can do it. It's everyone else that's put at a disadvantage.
itake 9y ago
Wikipedia just defines end to end as communication between nodes and it never specifically defines end to end as "person to person". [0] Do you have another source? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle
- kakarot 9y ago
  > . . . application-specific features reside in the communicating end nodes of the network, rather than in intermediary nodes . . . No one ever said it was people. We're talking about communication between two nodes that is simply facilitated by intermediary nodes. Your own source supports the argument, I think you should reread it.
  - itake 9y ago
    Node 1 would be my laptop. Node 2 would be the server. Intermediary nodes would be the various routers, switches, and other networking devices that inspects the traffic between the two nodes. so my own source supports my question. nodes do not need to be "humans"
    - kakarot 9y ago
      Too bad that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, namely end-to-end communication between two individually-operated clients.

lucb1e 9y ago

There are two people involved. To quote myself: > The server you'd be talking to in my case is physically mine, in my home, so if I'm an endpoint and someone else is an endpoint, and they have an encrypted connection to the server, for all intents and purposes, it's end to end encrypted. There are two people who can read the communications: me and whoever I'm talking to. But rather, my point was this: > Terrorists and other criminals have an interest in arranging this, and it's quite easy Setting up https is easy, and steganography is easy to do. Thus, a ban would be pointless because everyone who needs it for criminal activities, still can do it. It's everyone else that's put at a disadvantage.

itake 9y ago

Wikipedia just defines end to end as communication between nodes and it never specifically defines end to end as "person to person". [0] Do you have another source? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle

kakarot 9y ago
> . . . application-specific features reside in the communicating end nodes of the network, rather than in intermediary nodes . . . No one ever said it was people. We're talking about communication between two nodes that is simply facilitated by intermediary nodes. Your own source supports the argument, I think you should reread it.
- itake 9y ago
  Node 1 would be my laptop. Node 2 would be the server. Intermediary nodes would be the various routers, switches, and other networking devices that inspects the traffic between the two nodes. so my own source supports my question. nodes do not need to be "humans"
  - kakarot 9y ago
    Too bad that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, namely end-to-end communication between two individually-operated clients.