5 ms·

You've got to be kidding me. The ability to store data on your device is a basic requirement of a software environment which is provided by all platforms. I'd

You've got to be kidding me. The ability to store data on your device is a basic requirement of a software environment which is provided by all platforms. I'd forgive someone for not understanding that arbitrary data can be encrypted, but you claim to have some expertise in cryptography so you don't get a pass there. Someone like OWS, the developers of a privacy app, certainly don't get a pass. It is possible, and it is easy, and you know this.

tptacek 6y ago
Support your claim with evidence, like I asked earlier. Not axiomatically; with an example of a mainstream messenger other than Signal that doesn't store a database of contacts serverside. For example: do either of the two messengers you formerly recommended manage to avoid this problem? After all, it's apparently super simple to solve this. Look at where this left Tox.
- ddevault 6y ago
  >Not axiomatically; with an example of a mainstream messenger I don't have to provide the specific sort of evidence you're asking for in order to be right. I could write up a small script demonstrating the approach I'm talking about here, but it's rather obvious and based on simple, well-understood axioms. Unless you reject the axioms that (1) contact lists are representible as data, (2) applications can store data on your device, and (3) that data can be encrypted? If you're just going to argue in bad faith then you can take it elsewhere, I'm not interested. Based on my past experiences with you, I don't have high hopes. >do either of the two messengers you formerly recommended Recommandations which have been retracted; I decline to answer.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    You did not retract them. You ghost edited them out of your post to save face. A retraction would be useful, and you should add one.
    - ddevault 6y ago
      You might have preferred it if I had written up a retraction in the article itself, but nevertheless, the statement was removed over 2 years ago and has no bearing on the present-day discussion. Stop being a bully and leave me alone! I am tired of your harassment.
- Shared404 6y ago
  > Support your claim with evidence, like I asked earlier. You asked for specifically mainstream messengers. Cutting out mainstream, I can think of Tox and Jami off the top of my head. Update 0: remove Tox, as you mention it in your comment. Update 1: add Tox back in because your reply is about it, and I made edit 0 before seeing your reply.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    Until a couple years ago, Tox worked with sidecar services that existed solely to store this information serverside. That, and the fact that Tox is not a mainstream messenger, illustrates the point I'm trying to make --- which is about messengers, not about this post, which thankfully doesn't make this bogus but popular argument.
    - Shared404 6y ago
      > Tox worked with sidecar services that existed solely to store this information serverside. So Tox is out. No contest. > That, and the fact that Tox is not a mainstream messenger, illustrates the point I'm trying to make --- which is about messengers This doesn't make sense to me. @ddevault stated that a messenger could store contacts client side. Jami clearly demonstrates this. What does it being mainstream or not have to do with this? > thankfully doesn't make this bogus but popular argument. What does this add, except a personal attack? We can see that you think this is a bad argument from the fact that you're contesting it.
      - tptacek 6y ago
        You can do anything if you relax the constraint that people are willing to use your tool. By that logic, PGP is a perfectly cromulent secure messenger! That's the point of narrowing it down to mainstream messengers. You misread my last sentence. DeVault's post does not make the bogus argument we're discussing. I'm trying to be explicit that I'm not criticizing his post for doing so. If it's an attack, it's an attack on an argument that he didn't make. (If it reads like a personalized attack on an argument that you believe in, I apologize, and will dial it back).

tptacek 6y ago

Support your claim with evidence, like I asked earlier. Not axiomatically; with an example of a mainstream messenger other than Signal that doesn't store a database of contacts serverside. For example: do either of the two messengers you formerly recommended manage to avoid this problem? After all, it's apparently super simple to solve this. Look at where this left Tox.

ddevault 6y ago
>Not axiomatically; with an example of a mainstream messenger I don't have to provide the specific sort of evidence you're asking for in order to be right. I could write up a small script demonstrating the approach I'm talking about here, but it's rather obvious and based on simple, well-understood axioms. Unless you reject the axioms that (1) contact lists are representible as data, (2) applications can store data on your device, and (3) that data can be encrypted? If you're just going to argue in bad faith then you can take it elsewhere, I'm not interested. Based on my past experiences with you, I don't have high hopes. >do either of the two messengers you formerly recommended Recommandations which have been retracted; I decline to answer.
- tptacek 6y ago
  You did not retract them. You ghost edited them out of your post to save face. A retraction would be useful, and you should add one.
  - ddevault 6y ago
    You might have preferred it if I had written up a retraction in the article itself, but nevertheless, the statement was removed over 2 years ago and has no bearing on the present-day discussion. Stop being a bully and leave me alone! I am tired of your harassment.
Shared404 6y ago
> Support your claim with evidence, like I asked earlier. You asked for specifically mainstream messengers. Cutting out mainstream, I can think of Tox and Jami off the top of my head. Update 0: remove Tox, as you mention it in your comment. Update 1: add Tox back in because your reply is about it, and I made edit 0 before seeing your reply.
- tptacek 6y ago
  Until a couple years ago, Tox worked with sidecar services that existed solely to store this information serverside. That, and the fact that Tox is not a mainstream messenger, illustrates the point I'm trying to make --- which is about messengers, not about this post, which thankfully doesn't make this bogus but popular argument.
  - Shared404 6y ago
    > Tox worked with sidecar services that existed solely to store this information serverside. So Tox is out. No contest. > That, and the fact that Tox is not a mainstream messenger, illustrates the point I'm trying to make --- which is about messengers This doesn't make sense to me. @ddevault stated that a messenger could store contacts client side. Jami clearly demonstrates this. What does it being mainstream or not have to do with this? > thankfully doesn't make this bogus but popular argument. What does this add, except a personal attack? We can see that you think this is a bad argument from the fact that you're contesting it.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      You can do anything if you relax the constraint that people are willing to use your tool. By that logic, PGP is a perfectly cromulent secure messenger! That's the point of narrowing it down to mainstream messengers. You misread my last sentence. DeVault's post does not make the bogus argument we're discussing. I'm trying to be explicit that I'm not criticizing his post for doing so. If it's an attack, it's an attack on an argument that he didn't make. (If it reads like a personalized attack on an argument that you believe in, I apologize, and will dial it back).