5 ms·

A protocol existing is better than no protocol at all.

bitexploder 8y ago
In the modern age of surveillance some protocols could be actively worse. Sad times, but IRC has no real place in the world of someone hoping to preserve their privacy.
- na85 8y ago
  Are you implying that discord, slack, et al have a better privacy model?
  - hamandcheese 8y ago
    Signal, keybase, iMessage all have a better privacy model.
    - rasengan 8y ago
      Signal requires a phone number. Keybase is an identity service. iMessage requires a phone number and is not verifiable. IRC on the other hand allows ephemeral usernames, you have the option to use e2e encryption if you choose, etc.
      - kemayo 8y ago
        iMessage doesn't require a phone number. You can use it with just an email address. I mean, you do need an Apple ID to do it that way. But I don't think there's anything stopping you from creating throwaway Apple IDs.
- jlgaddis 8y ago
  > "... IRC has no real place in the world of someone hoping to preserve their privacy." Why is that? IRC supports SSL, of course, and many IRC networks offer "cloaks" (to hide your IP address from other users) and/or permit connections via Tor.
  - hamandcheese 8y ago
    “Supports” is the real non starter. “Requires” is what we are looking for.
    - s3krit 8y ago
      Most networks support a channel mode that only lets people connected to the server via SSL join the channel. Some networks only let people connect via SSL.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    The privacy story for SSL is no better than the privacy story that Slack offers. Basically, you're proposing a level of privacy that only asymptotically approaches the most popular unencrypted web chat program in the world.
  - zingmars 8y ago
    Cloaks aren't reliable and there are a few tricks to uncloak a user anyway.
    - coatmatter 8y ago
      I think this is getting aside of the topic of what privacy really is for most people. IRC by default does not encourage endless selfies or oversharing that the modern social networks promote. I've never seen an ircd cloak instruction page misrepresent what they can and cannot do. While protecting IP addresses is important (which the GDPR also believes in), I think it's also important to not lose perspective of the bigger dangers out there right now such as default user behaviour and conditioning. For example, IRC has never led to huge numbers of people publicly humiliating themselves by bitching about their employers, etc.
    - rasengan 8y ago
      Tricks? Can you elaborate? Like what outside of taking the scope outside of the IRC client (external link, etc) An IRC cloak is programmed into the ircd itself ensuring that ones IP address is not exposed. I don’t think you can just hack that. If you use the external link trick, everyone is susceptible to that no matter what app/platform they use unless you use a VPN or Tor.

In the modern age of surveillance some protocols could be actively worse. Sad times, but IRC has no real place in the world of someone hoping to preserve their privacy.

na85 8y ago
Are you implying that discord, slack, et al have a better privacy model?
- hamandcheese 8y ago
  Signal, keybase, iMessage all have a better privacy model.
  - rasengan 8y ago
    Signal requires a phone number. Keybase is an identity service. iMessage requires a phone number and is not verifiable. IRC on the other hand allows ephemeral usernames, you have the option to use e2e encryption if you choose, etc.
    - kemayo 8y ago
      iMessage doesn't require a phone number. You can use it with just an email address. I mean, you do need an Apple ID to do it that way. But I don't think there's anything stopping you from creating throwaway Apple IDs.
jlgaddis 8y ago
> "... IRC has no real place in the world of someone hoping to preserve their privacy." Why is that? IRC supports SSL, of course, and many IRC networks offer "cloaks" (to hide your IP address from other users) and/or permit connections via Tor.
- hamandcheese 8y ago
  “Supports” is the real non starter. “Requires” is what we are looking for.
  - s3krit 8y ago
    Most networks support a channel mode that only lets people connected to the server via SSL join the channel. Some networks only let people connect via SSL.
- tptacek 8y ago
  The privacy story for SSL is no better than the privacy story that Slack offers. Basically, you're proposing a level of privacy that only asymptotically approaches the most popular unencrypted web chat program in the world.
- zingmars 8y ago
  Cloaks aren't reliable and there are a few tricks to uncloak a user anyway.
  - coatmatter 8y ago
    I think this is getting aside of the topic of what privacy really is for most people. IRC by default does not encourage endless selfies or oversharing that the modern social networks promote. I've never seen an ircd cloak instruction page misrepresent what they can and cannot do. While protecting IP addresses is important (which the GDPR also believes in), I think it's also important to not lose perspective of the bigger dangers out there right now such as default user behaviour and conditioning. For example, IRC has never led to huge numbers of people publicly humiliating themselves by bitching about their employers, etc.
  - rasengan 8y ago
    Tricks? Can you elaborate? Like what outside of taking the scope outside of the IRC client (external link, etc) An IRC cloak is programmed into the ircd itself ensuring that ones IP address is not exposed. I don’t think you can just hack that. If you use the external link trick, everyone is susceptible to that no matter what app/platform they use unless you use a VPN or Tor.