5 ms·
Remember OTR messaging? The benefit of an open system like XMPP is that you can add end-to-end encryption if you want to do so. Really though, why is end-to-e
by betterunix2 6y ago
Remember OTR messaging? The benefit of an open system like XMPP is that you can add end-to-end encryption if you want to do so.
Really though, why is end-to-end encryption the one thing that should disqualify a system? What about a10y, i18n, etc.? For a vision-impaired user a10y matters a whole lot more than encryption. That is the real point of openness and federation -- allowing users' needs to be met by any developers who have the time and inclination to do so, rather than leaving users at the mercy of a single team (or even a single person).
- hiq 6y ago> Really though, why is end-to-end encryption the one thing that should disqualify a system? Because security as an afterthought is known to fail.
- betterunix2 6y agoEmpathy, the Gnome messaging software, has yet to implement end-to-end encryption because of this mode of thinking. Rather than implement OTR they said they felt it was better to implement a protocol with E2E built in since it would be supported by native clients (what does that even mean for XMPP?). As a result, their users never had end-to-end encrypted messaging at all. That is what being religious about these things gets you. Signal is completely closed and its users are at the mercy of the developers. XMPP+OTR was a kludge but it worked and the only reason the outstanding problems were not resolved is that the cryptographers behind OTR decided to focus on Signal. Matrix is basically irrelevant right now and whatever security benefits it might have are equally irrelevant because very few people are using it.