3 ms·

This is mostly about anonymity. Signal is not really intended to provide anonymity. Most encrypted messaging is not intended to provide anonymity. That is becau

This is mostly about anonymity. Signal is not really intended to provide anonymity. Most encrypted messaging is not intended to provide anonymity. That is because anonymity is harder to do than privacy and privacy is hard. Fortunately, most people do not need anonymity in their day to day lives. They just need to live in a country with good privacy laws to prevent the commercial exploitation of their data. So if you live in a place with little or no legal privacy protection like the USA things will be fundamentally different. There are a bunch of XMPP servers running on Tor hidden services: * https://gist.github.com/dllud/a46d4a555e31dfeff6ad41dcf20729ac https://gist.github.com/dllud/a46d4a555e31dfeff6ad41dcf20729... ... but the article talks about Matrix instead for some reason.

johnchristopher 6y ago
On the topic of anonymity I do like this stance: > Just for the hell of it: Anonymity is fundamentally about removing context. You can't provide anonymity you can only provide protocols that endeavour to remove context. Attacks on anonymity system always come down to injecting or deriving context. > In an adversarial environment (just so we are all on the same page, life is an adversarial environment), there are few limitations on the kinds of context attackers are allowed to inject or derive context from. > No anonymity system is absolute because there is always context. The majority of my research in this space centers around the context that people add on top of robust protocols that ultimately undermine them. I'm interested in practical failures, not theoretical restrictions. > Privacy will always been an active choice, not a passive tool. That doesn't make it impossible or out of reach or "dead", it makes it a fight worth fighting. https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis/status/1273743630801371137 https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis/status/12737436308013711... https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis Sarah Jamie Lewis @SarahJamieLewis Executive Director @OpenPriv Anonymity hasn't the same requirements as secrecy does.

johnchristopher 6y ago

On the topic of anonymity I do like this stance: > Just for the hell of it: Anonymity is fundamentally about removing context. You can't provide anonymity you can only provide protocols that endeavour to remove context. Attacks on anonymity system always come down to injecting or deriving context. > In an adversarial environment (just so we are all on the same page, life is an adversarial environment), there are few limitations on the kinds of context attackers are allowed to inject or derive context from. > No anonymity system is absolute because there is always context. The majority of my research in this space centers around the context that people add on top of robust protocols that ultimately undermine them. I'm interested in practical failures, not theoretical restrictions. > Privacy will always been an active choice, not a passive tool. That doesn't make it impossible or out of reach or "dead", it makes it a fight worth fighting. https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis/status/1273743630801371137 https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis/status/12737436308013711... https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis Sarah Jamie Lewis @SarahJamieLewis Executive Director @OpenPriv Anonymity hasn't the same requirements as secrecy does.