7 ms·

You could argue that Matrix does protect metadata if you run your own server - and in extremis, one way of running your own server and protect metadata is to go

You could argue that Matrix does protect metadata if you run your own server - and in extremis, one way of running your own server and protect metadata is to go P2P and embed it into your client (which is one thing we're currently working on). That said, there are some other pretty big differences between Matrix & Signal; the biggest one is probably that Matrix is an open standard and open network, encouraging 3rd party clients, servers, bridges, bots etc - optimising both for freedom/liberty as well as encryption. Signal optimises for privacy at all costs and doesn't allow 3rd party clients or services. See https://matrix.org/blog/2020/01/02/on-privacy-versus-freedom https://matrix.org/blog/2020/01/02/on-privacy-versus-freedom for more.

tptacek 7y ago
That's not really a reasonable argument. Signal makes a profound UX tradeoff to protect metadata by not requiring servers to store it in the first place: it drafts off people's phone contact lists, and thus everyone who uses it needs to be identified by a phone number. Matrix doesn't have any special way of avoiding that tradeoff. It just takes the other end of the trade: Matrix servers are exposed to valuable metadata, so that people can use whatever identifier they want. And, of course, the flip side of Matrix's "freedom and liberty" federalized design is that it is May 7, 2020, and the project is just now announcing E2E by default for private conversations. This is exactly why, years ago, Moxie Marlinspike wrote his post arguing about the downsides of federalization. It sure looks like his predictions were borne out! I think both of these projects are valid and important, and that they have different goals and audiences, and we do people a disservice when we pretend like they're in any kind of serious competition. Matrix is what you'd replace an IRC server with. Signal is what you'd tell an immigration lawyer to use for messaging.
- chrisweekly 7y ago
  Thank you for this illuminating comment; it was helpful and imho exemplary.
- fiter 7y ago
  I believe you consider phone numbers pseudo-anonymous identifiers, which I believe Matrix names also qualify as. Is there any technical reason why Matrix servers would have to store contact lists? Both Signal and Matrix would have store message metadata to deliver it. I searched for what the significant difference is, but could not come up with a good document to read.
  - badrabbit 7y ago
    Phone numbers are the most identifying piece of information. They are precise identifiers not pseudo-anonymous. A non-burner phone can easily be converted to a complete background check on the person for under $50 ,for a higher price it can be converted to current realtime physical address.
    - ChristianBundy 7y ago
      > easily be converted Could you link to a reputable resource for this? I've always imagined that phone number background checks were mostly scams with a bit of public information sprinkled on top. I'd be very surprised to learn that I could purchase a burner phone, give you the phone number, and have you be able to tell me my address and criminal history.
      - fwip 7y ago
        They just said "non-burner phone."
      - snazz 7y ago
        For non-burner phones, just Google the phone number---you'll probably get a sketchy "look this person up for $XX.YY" telephone directory page that will contain their full name and age, if not their address.
        tialaramex 7y ago
        So, I just Googled my phone number, and the phone numbers of several friends. In each case I got dozens of the same flavour of site, which I've seen many times before, it has a paginated list of every possible phone number that could exist, and an advertisement. These sites are pretty cheap to build and presumably over their lifetime they bring in enough advertising revenue to justify renewal costs, hosting and so on. But they don't offer (and couldn't deliver) personal information about any of us, since that isn't publicly available.
- kick 7y ago
  To add to this point, the goal for end-to-end encryption by default was January (said in December): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21765008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21765008 But there have been other times where "soon!" have been given over the past three years: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3AArathorn%20e2e%20default&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... I like Matrix and think Signal makes some serious mistakes for no apparent reason, but yeah, the repeated "Matrix is just as good and more free we swear!" is...maybe not the right thing to say, yet.
- comex 7y ago
  > And, of course, the flip side of Matrix's "freedom and liberty" federalized design is that it is May 7, 2020, and the project is just now announcing E2E by default for private conversations. This is exactly why, years ago, Moxie Marlinspike wrote his post arguing about the downsides of federalization. It sure looks like his predictions were borne out! I'm skeptical that much of this particular delay has to do with federation, as opposed to things like differing priorities and general project velocity. Why? Because Matrix is not yet as successful or as diverse as XMPP, the example Moxie gave in his blog post. My impression is that Matrix has one main server implementation (Synapse) that everyone uses, and one main client implementation (Riot) that E2E encryption was added to. And the company developing Synapse and Riot is also developing the spec, so it's completely coordinated. Alternate clients and servers exist, but they're very much "alternate"; I don't think anyone was waiting for them to implement anything before making this announcement. I could be wrong. I'm not involved in Matrix development, or even a Matrix user. But that's my impression from some quick Googling. If I'm right, the only real cost of decentralization at this point was having to (a) design the protocol itself to support federation and (b) document the protocol as part of the Matrix spec. That's not nothing, but it's small potatoes compared to the kind of massive ecosystem fragmentation Moxie was talking about.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    I've been back-and-forth with 'Arathorn about this for a long time and I'm pretty comfortable with my diagnosis. For instance: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20315096 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20315096
  - Arathorn 7y ago
    My take on this is: Yes, Matrix’s development would go way faster (6-10x is my estimate) if it wasn’t decentralised. Huge amounts of effort goes into designing a system where you have multiple servers (or peers in p2p) which can’t be trusted, and where the behaviour needs to be formally specified in a neutral public spec that can be independently implemented. You have to layer the spec into abstractions which ensure the lower layers are stable and relatively frozen such that folks can build on them confidently, but the higher layers can evolve and experiment as rapidly as possible. However, we think this is an acceptable cost in exchange for building an open network / protocol / ecosystem like Matrix. Freedom is important. As comex points out, we’ve tried to mitigate slowness by developing the core of Matrix (protocol and reference server and reference clients) by the same logical team rather than by vying factions - which has certainly helped, but only as an incremental factor. The fact it took us 3 years to exit beta for E2EE and turn it on by default reflects more that we chose a large scope (interactive verif, cross-signing, encrypted key backups, etc all break new ground, afaik), had to make it decentralised, and also reflects prioritisation (encryption is not our only focus). So yes, it takes longer to build Matrix than a centralised e2ee messenger. Or longer to build bitcoin than paypal. Or the Web than AOL. But we think it’s worth it.
- ThePowerOfFuet 6y ago
  Nobody ever seems to talk about Threema. :/
mirimir 7y ago
But there's no anonymity in Matrix by default, right? Can Matrix servers be run as Tor onion services?
- ptman 7y ago
  They can, but the tor servers cannot federate with non-tor -servers (how would the non-tor -servers connect to the tor-servers?)
  - mirimir 7y ago
    One can run reverse Tor to clearnet proxies that are both anonymous and ~disposable. That is, knowing the proxy IP doesn't compromise the Tor onion server, and the proxy retains no PII, and can be readily replaced if taken down.
mekster 7y ago
I've tried Matrix. The principle sounds great but the lack of quality client just put me off on whichever platforms I've tried with most popular clients. The interface is just complicated for average people and the translations were half done and this will scare people off if I recommend for cross company chat. The server side may be great but it needs some work to have simple and elegant client on desktop and mobile clients. Currently I use Mattermost and it seems to be doing ok but this has no built-in support for audio and video.
- holler 7y ago
  Personally I think this is a fundamental problem with matrix and why it will always only appeal to a certain segment of users. For those users, namely tech/security enthusiasts, it is appealing due to its federated architecture, privacy, etc. For anyone else, it’s too complicated. Even discord, often cited, suffers from this imo. The mass public does not want complicated. The mention of words like “e2e”, “server”, “bridge”, “decentralized”, might as well be from an alien language. That said, if it works well for their target demographic then it could have success in that space.
  - mekster 7y ago
    It can be solved with a simple client that hides the complexity but only shows what makes sense to average users.
    - Arathorn 7y ago
      So we are painfully aware that Riot’s usability still needs to increase, as per https://blog.riot.im/e2e-encryption-by-default-cross-signing-is-here/#what-s-next https://blog.riot.im/e2e-encryption-by-default-cross-signing... - although I’m not sure it’s quite as dire as the GP makes out. All I can say is that we’ve hired three permanent kick-ass full time UI/UX designers for the team, put them charge of the product direction for Riot, and told all the devs that their job is to do nothing but implement their design iterations as efficiently and accurately as possible. Let’s see how it goes.

tptacek 7y ago

That's not really a reasonable argument. Signal makes a profound UX tradeoff to protect metadata by not requiring servers to store it in the first place: it drafts off people's phone contact lists, and thus everyone who uses it needs to be identified by a phone number. Matrix doesn't have any special way of avoiding that tradeoff. It just takes the other end of the trade: Matrix servers are exposed to valuable metadata, so that people can use whatever identifier they want. And, of course, the flip side of Matrix's "freedom and liberty" federalized design is that it is May 7, 2020, and the project is just now announcing E2E by default for private conversations. This is exactly why, years ago, Moxie Marlinspike wrote his post arguing about the downsides of federalization. It sure looks like his predictions were borne out! I think both of these projects are valid and important, and that they have different goals and audiences, and we do people a disservice when we pretend like they're in any kind of serious competition. Matrix is what you'd replace an IRC server with. Signal is what you'd tell an immigration lawyer to use for messaging.

chrisweekly 7y ago
Thank you for this illuminating comment; it was helpful and imho exemplary.
fiter 7y ago
I believe you consider phone numbers pseudo-anonymous identifiers, which I believe Matrix names also qualify as. Is there any technical reason why Matrix servers would have to store contact lists? Both Signal and Matrix would have store message metadata to deliver it. I searched for what the significant difference is, but could not come up with a good document to read.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  Phone numbers are the most identifying piece of information. They are precise identifiers not pseudo-anonymous. A non-burner phone can easily be converted to a complete background check on the person for under $50 ,for a higher price it can be converted to current realtime physical address.
  - ChristianBundy 7y ago
    > easily be converted Could you link to a reputable resource for this? I've always imagined that phone number background checks were mostly scams with a bit of public information sprinkled on top. I'd be very surprised to learn that I could purchase a burner phone, give you the phone number, and have you be able to tell me my address and criminal history.
    - fwip 7y ago
      They just said "non-burner phone."
    - snazz 7y ago
      For non-burner phones, just Google the phone number---you'll probably get a sketchy "look this person up for $XX.YY" telephone directory page that will contain their full name and age, if not their address.
      - tialaramex 7y ago
        So, I just Googled my phone number, and the phone numbers of several friends. In each case I got dozens of the same flavour of site, which I've seen many times before, it has a paginated list of every possible phone number that could exist, and an advertisement. These sites are pretty cheap to build and presumably over their lifetime they bring in enough advertising revenue to justify renewal costs, hosting and so on. But they don't offer (and couldn't deliver) personal information about any of us, since that isn't publicly available.
kick 7y ago
To add to this point, the goal for end-to-end encryption by default was January (said in December): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21765008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21765008 But there have been other times where "soon!" have been given over the past three years: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3AArathorn%20e2e%20default&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... I like Matrix and think Signal makes some serious mistakes for no apparent reason, but yeah, the repeated "Matrix is just as good and more free we swear!" is...maybe not the right thing to say, yet.
comex 7y ago
> And, of course, the flip side of Matrix's "freedom and liberty" federalized design is that it is May 7, 2020, and the project is just now announcing E2E by default for private conversations. This is exactly why, years ago, Moxie Marlinspike wrote his post arguing about the downsides of federalization. It sure looks like his predictions were borne out! I'm skeptical that much of this particular delay has to do with federation, as opposed to things like differing priorities and general project velocity. Why? Because Matrix is not yet as successful or as diverse as XMPP, the example Moxie gave in his blog post. My impression is that Matrix has one main server implementation (Synapse) that everyone uses, and one main client implementation (Riot) that E2E encryption was added to. And the company developing Synapse and Riot is also developing the spec, so it's completely coordinated. Alternate clients and servers exist, but they're very much "alternate"; I don't think anyone was waiting for them to implement anything before making this announcement. I could be wrong. I'm not involved in Matrix development, or even a Matrix user. But that's my impression from some quick Googling. If I'm right, the only real cost of decentralization at this point was having to (a) design the protocol itself to support federation and (b) document the protocol as part of the Matrix spec. That's not nothing, but it's small potatoes compared to the kind of massive ecosystem fragmentation Moxie was talking about.
- tptacek 7y ago
  I've been back-and-forth with 'Arathorn about this for a long time and I'm pretty comfortable with my diagnosis. For instance: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20315096 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20315096
- Arathorn 7y ago
  My take on this is: Yes, Matrix’s development would go way faster (6-10x is my estimate) if it wasn’t decentralised. Huge amounts of effort goes into designing a system where you have multiple servers (or peers in p2p) which can’t be trusted, and where the behaviour needs to be formally specified in a neutral public spec that can be independently implemented. You have to layer the spec into abstractions which ensure the lower layers are stable and relatively frozen such that folks can build on them confidently, but the higher layers can evolve and experiment as rapidly as possible. However, we think this is an acceptable cost in exchange for building an open network / protocol / ecosystem like Matrix. Freedom is important. As comex points out, we’ve tried to mitigate slowness by developing the core of Matrix (protocol and reference server and reference clients) by the same logical team rather than by vying factions - which has certainly helped, but only as an incremental factor. The fact it took us 3 years to exit beta for E2EE and turn it on by default reflects more that we chose a large scope (interactive verif, cross-signing, encrypted key backups, etc all break new ground, afaik), had to make it decentralised, and also reflects prioritisation (encryption is not our only focus). So yes, it takes longer to build Matrix than a centralised e2ee messenger. Or longer to build bitcoin than paypal. Or the Web than AOL. But we think it’s worth it.
ThePowerOfFuet 6y ago
Nobody ever seems to talk about Threema. :/

mirimir 7y ago

But there's no anonymity in Matrix by default, right? Can Matrix servers be run as Tor onion services?

ptman 7y ago
They can, but the tor servers cannot federate with non-tor -servers (how would the non-tor -servers connect to the tor-servers?)
- mirimir 7y ago
  One can run reverse Tor to clearnet proxies that are both anonymous and ~disposable. That is, knowing the proxy IP doesn't compromise the Tor onion server, and the proxy retains no PII, and can be readily replaced if taken down.

mekster 7y ago

I've tried Matrix. The principle sounds great but the lack of quality client just put me off on whichever platforms I've tried with most popular clients. The interface is just complicated for average people and the translations were half done and this will scare people off if I recommend for cross company chat. The server side may be great but it needs some work to have simple and elegant client on desktop and mobile clients. Currently I use Mattermost and it seems to be doing ok but this has no built-in support for audio and video.

holler 7y ago
Personally I think this is a fundamental problem with matrix and why it will always only appeal to a certain segment of users. For those users, namely tech/security enthusiasts, it is appealing due to its federated architecture, privacy, etc. For anyone else, it’s too complicated. Even discord, often cited, suffers from this imo. The mass public does not want complicated. The mention of words like “e2e”, “server”, “bridge”, “decentralized”, might as well be from an alien language. That said, if it works well for their target demographic then it could have success in that space.
- mekster 7y ago
  It can be solved with a simple client that hides the complexity but only shows what makes sense to average users.
  - Arathorn 7y ago
    So we are painfully aware that Riot’s usability still needs to increase, as per https://blog.riot.im/e2e-encryption-by-default-cross-signing-is-here/#what-s-next https://blog.riot.im/e2e-encryption-by-default-cross-signing... - although I’m not sure it’s quite as dire as the GP makes out. All I can say is that we’ve hired three permanent kick-ass full time UI/UX designers for the team, put them charge of the product direction for Riot, and told all the devs that their job is to do nothing but implement their design iterations as efficiently and accurately as possible. Let’s see how it goes.