4 ms·
That is idiotic. It's strictly, objectively worse than Signal and not even acceptable in the worst case.
by dunefox 5y ago
That is idiotic. It's strictly, objectively worse than Signal and not even acceptable in the worst case.
- colesantiago 5y agoHow can you be so sure if you haven't tried it? I'd rather use a chat app that takes security matters seriously and urgently and will eventually have E2E. What's more 'idiotic' is prioritising and bolting on cryptocurrencies [0] than fixing urgent security issues, leaving it for months unfixed, while also claiming to be private and secure, and also requiring your phone number. [0] https://www.wired.com/story/signal-mobilecoin-payments-messaging-cryptocurrency/ https://www.wired.com/story/signal-mobilecoin-payments-messa...
- maqp 5y ago>I'd rather use a chat app that takes security matters seriously and urgently and will eventually have E2E. Deploying messaging app without E2EE being the first four chars on the security design paper -- even before the product name -- is the opposite of taking security matters seriously.
- dunefox 5y agoI agree that adding a crypto coin the way they did it is idiotic as well. But I wouldn't ditch an encrypted app for one that will 'eventually' be E2E encrypted. matrix.org is E2E encrypted and secure now and it's being used by France and Germany.
- colesantiago 5y agoMatrix / Element is unfortunately just far too technical for end users and the general population, but it is better than IRC. A mistake was the naming, for example you refer to the name of the protocol 'Matrix' instead of the name of the client 'Element'. Having a naming issue risks confusing lots of people, other than that I have already mentioned it as an alternative.