8 ms·
> Besides, I'm glad to see interoperability mentioned there, perhaps one day we could text from one messenger to another one without being held back by the owne
by parasense 4y ago
> Besides, I'm glad to see interoperability mentioned there, perhaps one day we could text from one messenger to another one without being held back by the owner.
By forcing message passing platforms to submit to sharing private encryption keys? And that interoperability entailing the possibility of passing messages to government eavesdropping schemes? Sounds like a utopian paradise!
- idle_zealot 4y ago> forcing message passing platforms to submit to sharing private encryption keys? Why assume that requirement? For E2E encrypted messaging services all that needs to be shared are public keys for interoperability to work. In the case of middleman encrypted messaging you already trust the provider not to sell you out. If they interoperate then you trust N providers, where N is the number of providers engaged in a particular chat thread.
- mrbombastic 4y agoYou say this like it is not a big deal, I trust Apple much more than I trust Meta with my messages. Apple has made privacy a cornerstone of their sales pitch, Meta not so much. N=2 is too many.
- zaik 4y agoTake a look at OMEMO (Signal encryption protocol for the XMPP internet standard). Interoperability and E2EE are not exclusive at all.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]