3 ms·

> As one example, making "core messaging functionality interoperable". How exactly does that work with end-to-end encryption? Quite simply: it doesn't. It can

• dzikimarian 4y ago
  That's plainly not true. There are hundreds of open protocols able to establish encrypted connection, including some dedicated to instant messaging. There's literally zero benefit that Apple, Google, FB or whoever is able to offer with their in-house implementation.
  • viktorcode 4y ago
    For two messengers operating on two different encryption protocols the only way to talk to each other is to introduce an intermediary, which will decrypt and then re-encrypt messages, thus throwing p2p model out of the window. Some optimists here telling that all messenger might follow a certain "standard" for transmitting encrypted messages. And in fact some messengers might, but this standard will be the lowest common denominator, i.e. the weakest security protocol all know. For p2p model generating secure private key is paramount. Can this be guaranteed by every peer operating in a chat? Not unless they all made by the same team with high security standard.
    • dzikimarian 4y ago
      >For two messengers operating on two different encryption protocols the only way to talk to each other is to introduce an intermediary. Or they simply could agree on solid common exchange protocol. There's no requirement to support crappy encryption. Just to open communication with your service. We've dozens of functionality identical, incompatible proprietary protocols, because each corporate schmuck wants their own walled garden, to squeeze a few more cents. Why should we agree to that?