4 ms·

Don't forget EFF also gave it high grades. What I also would like to see is meta-data eliminated in chat, without having to bring up a Tor server on your phone.

by martin1975 9y ago

Don't forget EFF also gave it high grades. What I also would like to see is meta-data eliminated in chat, without having to bring up a Tor server on your phone. Build it into the client/software, make it invisible.

pvg 9y ago
The EFF's handing out of 'grades' for this stuff is probably something everyone is better off forgetting.
- Erlich_Bachman 9y ago
  Their grades are based on objective assessment of properties of underlying technologies. They are very useful for most people, who are not going to study cryptography for several years and then manually reading and checking source code of every communications software product out there.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    No. They're not useful. They were a disaster, and EFF should stop doing them (I think they have?) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10525266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10525266
    - pvg 9y ago
      Yes they have. Now they have a set of (kind of weird) guides.
    - rapind 9y ago
      Seems like there's a demand for an objective layman friendly list like this (only more accurate). Wonder if that'll ever happen. I suspect security will remain a privilege of the technical elite or those that can pay the technical elite. I guess maybe that's OK, but a bit concerning at a consumer level where it could be another factor increasing the class gap.
      - kasey_junk 9y ago
        This press release is about security being increased in a product that has massive reach amongst those who are not the technical elite. There doesn't appear to be any extra fee for it as well.
        pvg 9y ago
        I don't think things are nearly as bleak as the GP poster sees them - my optimistic guess is that e2e encryption will be the default in most messaging systems within 10 years. On the other hand, this sort of integration is a symbolic baby step of little practical impact or increase in security. Not only are these features not enabled by default, they're so deeply buried in the UI they're hard to find even when you know they're there. It's easier to accidentally send someone an animated gif of tapirs playing poker and smoking cigars on FB Messenger than it is to deliberately start an encrypted conversation. Skype and Allo are not much better.
    - omnimus 9y ago
      > No. They're not useful. They were a disaster, and EFF should stop doing them (I think they have?) > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10525266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10525266 Seems like most of the critiqued stuff has changed. By the time i got to EFF recomendations Signal was the winner and use of telegram and cryptocat was discouraged.
  - rsync 9y ago
    "Their grades are based on objective assessment of properties of underlying technologies." What were the grades for apps/protocols that run on closed, proprietary basebands with, in some cases, DMA ? Or on devices with embedded, parallel computers that can run arbitrary java programs uploaded, at any time, by the carrier, without the users' knowledge[1] ? All fails, right ? Straight "F"s ? [1] These are called "SIM chips"

pvg 9y ago

The EFF's handing out of 'grades' for this stuff is probably something everyone is better off forgetting.

Erlich_Bachman 9y ago
Their grades are based on objective assessment of properties of underlying technologies. They are very useful for most people, who are not going to study cryptography for several years and then manually reading and checking source code of every communications software product out there.
- tptacek 9y ago
  No. They're not useful. They were a disaster, and EFF should stop doing them (I think they have?) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10525266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10525266
  - pvg 9y ago
    Yes they have. Now they have a set of (kind of weird) guides.
  - rapind 9y ago
    Seems like there's a demand for an objective layman friendly list like this (only more accurate). Wonder if that'll ever happen. I suspect security will remain a privilege of the technical elite or those that can pay the technical elite. I guess maybe that's OK, but a bit concerning at a consumer level where it could be another factor increasing the class gap.
    - kasey_junk 9y ago
      This press release is about security being increased in a product that has massive reach amongst those who are not the technical elite. There doesn't appear to be any extra fee for it as well.
      - pvg 9y ago
        I don't think things are nearly as bleak as the GP poster sees them - my optimistic guess is that e2e encryption will be the default in most messaging systems within 10 years. On the other hand, this sort of integration is a symbolic baby step of little practical impact or increase in security. Not only are these features not enabled by default, they're so deeply buried in the UI they're hard to find even when you know they're there. It's easier to accidentally send someone an animated gif of tapirs playing poker and smoking cigars on FB Messenger than it is to deliberately start an encrypted conversation. Skype and Allo are not much better.
  - omnimus 9y ago
    > No. They're not useful. They were a disaster, and EFF should stop doing them (I think they have?) > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10525266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10525266 Seems like most of the critiqued stuff has changed. By the time i got to EFF recomendations Signal was the winner and use of telegram and cryptocat was discouraged.
- rsync 9y ago
  "Their grades are based on objective assessment of properties of underlying technologies." What were the grades for apps/protocols that run on closed, proprietary basebands with, in some cases, DMA ? Or on devices with embedded, parallel computers that can run arbitrary java programs uploaded, at any time, by the carrier, without the users' knowledge[1] ? All fails, right ? Straight "F"s ? [1] These are called "SIM chips"