4 ms·

> No messenger system protects you against that. If the system doesn't have central server then it would become more difficult. You cannot subpoena a Tox netwo

> No messenger system protects you against that. If the system doesn't have central server then it would become more difficult. You cannot subpoena a Tox network. Any messenger that requires and stores a phone number (read your real-world identity and physical location) is neither anonymous nor private. Also, a centralized messenger with a single server means that all traffic between all the users around the world goes through one data-center in one country that can do what? Observe the traffic and detect who is using this messenger, at least their IP address and country. Of course, for most users this doesn't change anything because they don't do anything illegal. But if they don't do anything illegal then they don't really need protection and can use VK or Telegram.

lvh 8y ago
> Also, a centralized messenger with a single server means that all traffic between all the users around the world goes through one data-center in one country that can do what? Observe the traffic and detect who is using this messenger, at least their IP address and country. I mean, yes, a single server would have that property. But what system are we discussing that has a single server in a single data center? Furthermore: if you actually care about metadata hiding it's a lot more complicated than "we have more than one person operating the servers". > Of course, for most users this doesn't change anything because they don't do anything illegal. But if they don't do anything illegal then they don't really need protection and can use VK or Telegram. Privacy is not just for people who do illegal things.
pvg 8y ago
If the system doesn't have central server then it would become more difficult. You cannot subpoena a Tox network. The threat that was brought up was an actor with state-level resources, coercive capability and lack of scruples - the specific example being the threat of murdering someone's family, not subpoenas.
tialaramex 8y ago
So that whole "it's all flowing though a single DC" thing for Signal - that has a name in this sphere. It's called "Don't Stand Out". When five people call the known mob boss you follow all of them. Maybe one is just a friend from high school. Another is the mob accountant, another an enforcer, you're getting leads. But what if it's five thousand people - now you can't follow them all, it's overwhelming. Knowing five people in your country use Signal puts them all on the watchlist. If it's five million that's pointless. Without "Don't stand out" the encryption used just makes you a target. Barry, who uses Barry's very own private self-hosted server for a popular federated system, Stands Out. Message from Japan to Barry's system? That's for Barry. How do we know? Well Barry's the only one on that server, easy. No cryptography can fix this. Don't Stand Out
- lvh 8y ago
  You know what makes you not stand out? WhatsApp.
  - tialaramex 8y ago
    Indeed, and since it uses the Signal protocol I'd suggest it's the best option for a wide variety of practical circumstances.

lvh 8y ago

> Also, a centralized messenger with a single server means that all traffic between all the users around the world goes through one data-center in one country that can do what? Observe the traffic and detect who is using this messenger, at least their IP address and country. I mean, yes, a single server would have that property. But what system are we discussing that has a single server in a single data center? Furthermore: if you actually care about metadata hiding it's a lot more complicated than "we have more than one person operating the servers". > Of course, for most users this doesn't change anything because they don't do anything illegal. But if they don't do anything illegal then they don't really need protection and can use VK or Telegram. Privacy is not just for people who do illegal things.

pvg 8y ago

If the system doesn't have central server then it would become more difficult. You cannot subpoena a Tox network. The threat that was brought up was an actor with state-level resources, coercive capability and lack of scruples - the specific example being the threat of murdering someone's family, not subpoenas.

tialaramex 8y ago

So that whole "it's all flowing though a single DC" thing for Signal - that has a name in this sphere. It's called "Don't Stand Out". When five people call the known mob boss you follow all of them. Maybe one is just a friend from high school. Another is the mob accountant, another an enforcer, you're getting leads. But what if it's five thousand people - now you can't follow them all, it's overwhelming. Knowing five people in your country use Signal puts them all on the watchlist. If it's five million that's pointless. Without "Don't stand out" the encryption used just makes you a target. Barry, who uses Barry's very own private self-hosted server for a popular federated system, Stands Out. Message from Japan to Barry's system? That's for Barry. How do we know? Well Barry's the only one on that server, easy. No cryptography can fix this. Don't Stand Out

lvh 8y ago
You know what makes you not stand out? WhatsApp.
- tialaramex 8y ago
  Indeed, and since it uses the Signal protocol I'd suggest it's the best option for a wide variety of practical circumstances.