3 ms·

It's not a general disdain but IMO here it makes sense. Has it really failed though?

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Do we have secure SMS messages? Do we have unified mobile messaging with a mature protocol that is both widely accessible as well as secure? How many more decades shall we wait? (asked rhetorically, yet politely) Yes, I argue it has failed, and an SMS/MMS successor would look like a descendent of iMessages and Google's RCS. iMessages supports CALEA (but is still end to end encrypted, as well as FaceTime), all US messaging products must support it (even Twilio supports it [1] [2]). You are unable to subvert nation state legal jurisdictions within fundamental telcom infrastructure. Signal can get away with it, Apple, Google, and cellular carriers cannot. Can't have your cake (universal messaging) and eat it (end to end encryption with zero trust requirement) too. So can't we push from something better than SMS, using regulation if required? It must not be perfect, but simply extensible in the future (similar to SS7). In jurisdictions that are favorable to it, you support E2E encryption. In those that are not, you downgrade loudly. Compromises must occasionally be made. [1] https://www.twilio.com/legal/law-enforcement-guidelines https://www.twilio.com/legal/law-enforcement-guidelines [2] https://support.twilio.com/hc/en-us/articles/223136547-Submitting-subpoenas-court-orders-or-other-official-legal-requests-to-Twilio https://support.twilio.com/hc/en-us/articles/223136547-Submi...
- _red 8y ago
  The telcos were a national monopoly, which then became "deregulated" but for all practical purpose they hold a monopoly position with regards to cable-in-the-ground and various local right-of-way rights. So, the SMS solution is what these quasi-regulated entities gave you. Whereas iMessage, RCS, Signal, etc is what private industry gave you.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    I think it's great when private industry innovates and utilities can incorporate that innovation in new standards.

Do we have secure SMS messages? Do we have unified mobile messaging with a mature protocol that is both widely accessible as well as secure? How many more decades shall we wait? (asked rhetorically, yet politely) Yes, I argue it has failed, and an SMS/MMS successor would look like a descendent of iMessages and Google's RCS. iMessages supports CALEA (but is still end to end encrypted, as well as FaceTime), all US messaging products must support it (even Twilio supports it [1] [2]). You are unable to subvert nation state legal jurisdictions within fundamental telcom infrastructure. Signal can get away with it, Apple, Google, and cellular carriers cannot. Can't have your cake (universal messaging) and eat it (end to end encryption with zero trust requirement) too. So can't we push from something better than SMS, using regulation if required? It must not be perfect, but simply extensible in the future (similar to SS7). In jurisdictions that are favorable to it, you support E2E encryption. In those that are not, you downgrade loudly. Compromises must occasionally be made. [1] https://www.twilio.com/legal/law-enforcement-guidelines https://www.twilio.com/legal/law-enforcement-guidelines [2] https://support.twilio.com/hc/en-us/articles/223136547-Submitting-subpoenas-court-orders-or-other-official-legal-requests-to-Twilio https://support.twilio.com/hc/en-us/articles/223136547-Submi...

_red 8y ago
The telcos were a national monopoly, which then became "deregulated" but for all practical purpose they hold a monopoly position with regards to cable-in-the-ground and various local right-of-way rights. So, the SMS solution is what these quasi-regulated entities gave you. Whereas iMessage, RCS, Signal, etc is what private industry gave you.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  I think it's great when private industry innovates and utilities can incorporate that innovation in new standards.