3 ms·
> A for-profit corporation will not fix that This seems incorrect, given that there are multiple E2E apps on the market today. Unless you're implying that Sign
by danShumway 7y ago
> A for-profit corporation will not fix that
This seems incorrect, given that there are multiple E2E apps on the market today. Unless you're implying that Signal has also given encryption keys to China.
Regardless of why RCS isn't encrypted, it's not encrypted. I can vote in a government that supports encryption. But if I do that after RCS is standarized, the standard still won't be encrypted.
If what you're arguing here is true, this seems like a good reason not to implement RCS until after we get the government sorted out, or to abandon RCS and try to build a standard without government inputs.
I mean, what's the timeline for getting China to support encryption? 5 years? 10? Should I be throwing my support behind unencrypted messaging standards in the meantime?
- thekyle 7y agoI would assume that Signal has not cooperated with China since they are banned there.
- danShumway 7y agoThat means my choice is, "use an encrypted standard that's banned in China", or "use an unencrypted standard that's insecure everywhere". If China isn't going to approve an encrypted standard, then that sounds like a pretty strong argument that standards processes like RCS that have to play nicely with the Chinese government are the wrong way to build a messaging protocol. The preferable way to do this is probably to support a strongly encrypted protocol, and then build a bridge or a fallback for Chinese messaging since they won't adopt the standard. But then why not just use SMS as the fallback?