9 ms·

So that they can’t reshare? This is almost always why DRM is used. Just because I want to share some content with you doesn’t mean I want you to be able to shar

So that they can’t reshare? This is almost always why DRM is used. Just because I want to share some content with you doesn’t mean I want you to be able to share it with someone else.

jevoten 5y ago
> This is almost always why DRM is used. No, DRM is used to extend control to media players and manufacturers via licensing. The rest are just excuses.
- qeternity 5y ago
  Given that most DRM these days is implemented in the apps that license the content, I'm not sure this is remotely true. Maybe in the disc era there was truth to this, but even then I'm not sure that it was a greater concern than lost revenues due to piracy.
endisneigh 5y ago
Why do you believe that once you share a message you should continue to have control over it? That’s not what sharing means. Not to mention it won’t work. If they read it nothing is stopping them from simply telling someone else, drm or not. This technology will not prevent anyone from simply handing over their phone - and your messages - to someone else.
- p49k 5y ago
  This just goes back to what the original person said about "Building walls in physical world is also very stupid hehe" It's entirely reasonable to create a system designed to allow people to share things once, and indicate to others that they don't want it spread any further. It's reasonable to design software which attempts to honor such requests by introducing friction, making it 95% effective despite knowing that 5% of people will be able/willing to work around it. Most people are "path of least resistance" and are too lazy to work around something like this, which is exactly the point. Pretty much every person using such a system is aware that the recipient could just take a picture of the phone with a camera. Perfect is the enemy of the good.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    I don’t think it’s reasonable at all. The wall example isn’t the analogous situation. Is it reasonable that someone give you a gift and you cannot sell it or give it to anyone else?
    - p49k 5y ago
      Your analogy is not relevant at all to the situation. It's completely reasonable for someone to give you a letter or photo of a personal nature and ask you not to share it (or simply expect you to understand that it's not to be shared). In the physical realm, the honor system comes into effect. In the digital realm, there's nothing wrong with adding an imperfect layer of accountability/protection to greatly reduce the chance that it becomes shared.
      - johnisgood 5y ago
        > It's completely reasonable for someone to give you a letter or photo of a personal nature and ask you not to share it (or simply expect you to understand that it's not to be shared). Yeah, and because I am a good friend, I will not share those photos with anyone, especially if they ask me not to. :)
        p49k 5y ago
        Yes and some people are somewhat bad friends, and will share them, but not if there's a small barrier to overcome, as it's not worth the effort. And people are terrible friends and will take the time/effort to bypass any measures necessary to share the photo. The feature is designed to address the "somewhat bad" case, not to be perfect.
        johnisgood 5y ago
        > And people are terrible friends and will take the time/effort to bypass any measures necessary to share the photo. Exactly. They will pretty much bypass this one as well.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- johnisgood 5y ago
  Exactly. When you share something, that information is out and you have no control over of it. Plus, why would my friend want to share and then un-share something, or why would I want to do that to someone? The answer is that it is not for the regular people, it is to protect creators and such, not some regular Joe. Telegram is targeting a particular audience with this change. That said, I am pretty sure it will not be successful because I have access to a lot of creators' stuff through the Internet, be it music or books. If people want to save or share stuff, they will find a way.
  - chriswarbo 5y ago
    s/creators/rights-holders/g
- toyg 5y ago
  It's not about sharing, it's about proof of provenance. If I say "Alice told me this", there is no proof that it actually happened; Alice can deny it. If I forward the message or show you a screenshot, then the case that the communication happened is significantly stronger. (Of course screenshots can be doctored, but that's another problem) That's mostly what this is about - reducing the chances for accidental or willful disclosure to third parties.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    And if someone uses the telegram web client or simply hands over the phone? And it is about sharing - that’s how communication works, no?
  - feanaro 5y ago
    > If I forward the message or show you a screenshot, then the case that the communication happened is significantly stronger. (Of course screenshots can be doctored, but that's another problem) How is it another problem? If the method purports to be able to strengthen claims of veracity, but immediately after you demonstrate it to be vulnerable to spoofing, then it offered nothing in the first place. It's exactly the same problem.
- ben_w 5y ago
  Many things are shared in confidence. While I an certain the current state of affairs of having DRM and personal privacy is unstable in the face of even the tech we had 10 years ago, we still have a strong personal need for control over our information and our works.
  - mctaylor 5y ago
    Not true! We have no personal need for control over our information, as the utter lack of legal protections for personal privacy and personal information collection make abundantly clear. And works? Are you kidding me? Have you seen a typical corporate IP assignment agreement? This has nothing to do with persons (which the laws are making increasingly clear are irrelevant), and everything to do with corporations and their shareholders.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic or attempting a joke here? The EU, where I live, absolutely does have legal protections for personal privacy and personal information collection, hence GDPR and all the cookie popups[0]. And even if the law was silent, that wouldn’t itself be evidence of a lack of need, as people died from lack of workplace health and safety regulations well before there were laws about that. And while IP assignments are an interesting suggestion to raise, I counter that I have also seen a forum of users who didn’t read the T&C and suddenly realised $corporation had the eternal right to reproduce whatever they wrote on that forum (kinda necessary but clearly non-obvious to most normal people), which demonstrates that people definitely feel strongly attached to even really dumb and low-value works if they are those works are their own. [0] that they adhere to the relevant law about as well as all the YouTube videos saying “no copyright intended” adhere to IP laws is an enforcement problem, not a lack of rights
matheusmoreira 5y ago
Just because you want to share something doesn't mean you should. You cannot control what people will do, nor should you be able to control their actions by limiting their freedoms. Either you trust them or you don't.

So that they can’t reshare? This is almost always why DRM is used. Just because I want to share some content with you doesn’t mean I want you to be able to share it with someone else.

jevoten 5y ago

> This is almost always why DRM is used. No, DRM is used to extend control to media players and manufacturers via licensing. The rest are just excuses.

qeternity 5y ago
Given that most DRM these days is implemented in the apps that license the content, I'm not sure this is remotely true. Maybe in the disc era there was truth to this, but even then I'm not sure that it was a greater concern than lost revenues due to piracy.

endisneigh 5y ago

Why do you believe that once you share a message you should continue to have control over it? That’s not what sharing means. Not to mention it won’t work. If they read it nothing is stopping them from simply telling someone else, drm or not. This technology will not prevent anyone from simply handing over their phone - and your messages - to someone else.

p49k 5y ago
This just goes back to what the original person said about "Building walls in physical world is also very stupid hehe" It's entirely reasonable to create a system designed to allow people to share things once, and indicate to others that they don't want it spread any further. It's reasonable to design software which attempts to honor such requests by introducing friction, making it 95% effective despite knowing that 5% of people will be able/willing to work around it. Most people are "path of least resistance" and are too lazy to work around something like this, which is exactly the point. Pretty much every person using such a system is aware that the recipient could just take a picture of the phone with a camera. Perfect is the enemy of the good.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  I don’t think it’s reasonable at all. The wall example isn’t the analogous situation. Is it reasonable that someone give you a gift and you cannot sell it or give it to anyone else?
  - p49k 5y ago
    Your analogy is not relevant at all to the situation. It's completely reasonable for someone to give you a letter or photo of a personal nature and ask you not to share it (or simply expect you to understand that it's not to be shared). In the physical realm, the honor system comes into effect. In the digital realm, there's nothing wrong with adding an imperfect layer of accountability/protection to greatly reduce the chance that it becomes shared.
    - johnisgood 5y ago
      > It's completely reasonable for someone to give you a letter or photo of a personal nature and ask you not to share it (or simply expect you to understand that it's not to be shared). Yeah, and because I am a good friend, I will not share those photos with anyone, especially if they ask me not to. :)
      - p49k 5y ago
        Yes and some people are somewhat bad friends, and will share them, but not if there's a small barrier to overcome, as it's not worth the effort. And people are terrible friends and will take the time/effort to bypass any measures necessary to share the photo. The feature is designed to address the "somewhat bad" case, not to be perfect.
        johnisgood 5y ago
        > And people are terrible friends and will take the time/effort to bypass any measures necessary to share the photo. Exactly. They will pretty much bypass this one as well.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
johnisgood 5y ago
Exactly. When you share something, that information is out and you have no control over of it. Plus, why would my friend want to share and then un-share something, or why would I want to do that to someone? The answer is that it is not for the regular people, it is to protect creators and such, not some regular Joe. Telegram is targeting a particular audience with this change. That said, I am pretty sure it will not be successful because I have access to a lot of creators' stuff through the Internet, be it music or books. If people want to save or share stuff, they will find a way.
- chriswarbo 5y ago
  s/creators/rights-holders/g
toyg 5y ago
It's not about sharing, it's about proof of provenance. If I say "Alice told me this", there is no proof that it actually happened; Alice can deny it. If I forward the message or show you a screenshot, then the case that the communication happened is significantly stronger. (Of course screenshots can be doctored, but that's another problem) That's mostly what this is about - reducing the chances for accidental or willful disclosure to third parties.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  And if someone uses the telegram web client or simply hands over the phone? And it is about sharing - that’s how communication works, no?
- feanaro 5y ago
  > If I forward the message or show you a screenshot, then the case that the communication happened is significantly stronger. (Of course screenshots can be doctored, but that's another problem) How is it another problem? If the method purports to be able to strengthen claims of veracity, but immediately after you demonstrate it to be vulnerable to spoofing, then it offered nothing in the first place. It's exactly the same problem.
ben_w 5y ago
Many things are shared in confidence. While I an certain the current state of affairs of having DRM and personal privacy is unstable in the face of even the tech we had 10 years ago, we still have a strong personal need for control over our information and our works.
- mctaylor 5y ago
  Not true! We have no personal need for control over our information, as the utter lack of legal protections for personal privacy and personal information collection make abundantly clear. And works? Are you kidding me? Have you seen a typical corporate IP assignment agreement? This has nothing to do with persons (which the laws are making increasingly clear are irrelevant), and everything to do with corporations and their shareholders.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic or attempting a joke here? The EU, where I live, absolutely does have legal protections for personal privacy and personal information collection, hence GDPR and all the cookie popups[0]. And even if the law was silent, that wouldn’t itself be evidence of a lack of need, as people died from lack of workplace health and safety regulations well before there were laws about that. And while IP assignments are an interesting suggestion to raise, I counter that I have also seen a forum of users who didn’t read the T&C and suddenly realised $corporation had the eternal right to reproduce whatever they wrote on that forum (kinda necessary but clearly non-obvious to most normal people), which demonstrates that people definitely feel strongly attached to even really dumb and low-value works if they are those works are their own. [0] that they adhere to the relevant law about as well as all the YouTube videos saying “no copyright intended” adhere to IP laws is an enforcement problem, not a lack of rights

matheusmoreira 5y ago

Just because you want to share something doesn't mean you should. You cannot control what people will do, nor should you be able to control their actions by limiting their freedoms. Either you trust them or you don't.