3 ms·
The author seems to be using a weird definition of "open", which is incompatible with "secure". Do they mean "federated"? Even then, I can't see the incompatibi
by rhn_mk1 9y ago
The author seems to be using a weird definition of "open", which is incompatible with "secure". Do they mean "federated"? Even then, I can't see the incompatibility, bittorrent can encrypt even p2p streams.
- specialist 9y agoAlso not grokking author's taxonomy. I think the distinctions are interoperable vs proprietary and plaintext vs encrypted. iMessage is encrypted and proprietary. (I think) Google Chat is plaintext and interoperable. iMessage could be interoperable by allowing third parties to participate. Google Chat could be encrypted if it facilitated key exchange, via P2P, central registry, or both. Aren't there a bunch encrypted interoperable chat options? Like matrix.org and Signal? (Sorry, I contracted 'aggravated chat client fatigue' a long time ago and stopped paying attention to the horse race.)
- craftyguy 9y agoSignal is Yet Another Walled Garden.
- zaksoup 9y agoYeah I think you're totally right. The Author seems to be drawing a conclusion based on what is highly visible, but Matrix.org is both federated (what I think Thompson means by 'open') and supports e2e encryption. There's no technical limitation in e2e encryption patterns or federated messaging patterns that keeps them from being combined and used. Only that the default apps on iOS and Android are exclusively e2e or federated, but not both.