5 ms·
Which ones don't ask for a phone number?
by baxtr 4y ago
Which ones don't ask for a phone number?
- Semaphor 4y agoJabber/XMPP, Matrix are the obvious answers.
- nix23 4y agoI add IRC to the Mix
- bentley 4y agoIRC is not end‐to‐end encrypted.
- throwaway3859 4y agoYou could use a secure encrypted IRC-like protocol like Pest[0], though. [0]: https://pestnet.io https://pestnet.io
- mwest 4y agoComes up with a privacy error atm. Guess their server got bit hard by HN? Cached copy here: https://web.archive.org/web/20220915015328/https://pestnet.io/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220915015328/https://pestnet.i... Reminds me a bit of SILC: http://www.silcnet.org/ http://www.silcnet.org/ Still going to struggle with UX on a phone though...
- mwest 4y agoIn theory you can use OTR[1] but I've yet to see an easy way to use this from a phone. I remember IRC very fondly, but I feel it has a lot of baggage that makes it difficult to bring into the modern era. This blog post (not mine) explains it quite well: https://jlu5.com/blog/im-tired-of-irc-heres-why https://jlu5.com/blog/im-tired-of-irc-heres-why [1] https://otr.cypherpunks.ca/ https://otr.cypherpunks.ca/
- upofadown 4y agoOTR doesn't do groups. So it isn't really applicable to IRC. At this point, I am not really sure that end to end encryption is generally applicable to groups. The identity management problem quickly spirals out of control. I note that Telegram doesn't even try. I think the best that can be done is a scheme that makes everyone entirely trust the moderator of the group.
- nix23 4y ago>At this point, I am not really sure that end to end encryption is generally applicable to groups. You encrypt the message with all the public key's from persons in the group, what's the problem? You do it the same way with Mail...aka pgp. You don't need OTR just plain old gnupg: https://www.gnupg.org/gph/en/manual/x110.html https://www.gnupg.org/gph/en/manual/x110.html
- upofadown 4y agoEach participant needs to verify each and every other participant. So for 2 participants that's 2 verifications. For 3 participants that is 9 verifications. For 4 it's 16. The square of the number of participants. With just 30 participants that works out to 900 verifications ... and who actually knows 30 people on the internet? Even if you could do the verification in a technical sense it wouldn't mean anything. If you get a whole bunch of people together in real life for a meeting then chances are one or more of them is going to leak what happened. The problem is to a great extent inherent.
- nix23 4y agoMan you never hear of a trust-chain? How do you think end to end encryption works otherwise? And no you don't need to verify each other keys, since every one has his public key you obliviously trust, you just try to make an excuse for not knowing how e2e works.
- ilyt 4y agoneither is XMPP by default
- Grimburger 4y agoI'll get my mum right onto it
- leetnewb 4y agoIn all fairness, I got my entire non-technical family onto xmpp/jabber with Snikket (which is a highly opinionated packaging of existing xmpp server and clients with minor tweaks). They scan a QR code to download the app and join the server. It is e2ee out of the box and the experience is quite comfortable and seamless, even for a non-technical person.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- derwiki 4y agoThere are varying degrees of “non-technical”, and you lost most of my family at “scan a QR code”
- leetnewb 4y agoI don't know how it would have gone remotely, but no issue in-person. I opened an invite QR on my device, asked parent to open camera, and point it at code. They get the gist that the app name is Snikket, they get notifications of messages and calls, and the layout and icons are pretty similar to every other messaging app. I am going to attempt it with an in-law who only just stepped into the smartphone era this month, has no familiarity with a smartphone interface, and is the least technical person I know.
- freeqaz 4y agoI thought this was a skill that most people had now that most restaurants only give QR codes for menus?
- Semaphor 4y agoProbably depends on where you are, I’ve only seen that option once or twice, and that was in addition to a proper menu.
- compiskey 4y agoYour ISP and mobile provider still know :) your gadgets have registered IDs in the hardware. Every mechanical thing we come up has a decode-able sequence. DIY filter bubbles each of a unique configuration, decoupled from someone else’s monolith is the only way to be sure. It’s reverse Highlander; there cannot be only one. It’s fine, we were never all going to get along anyway.
- kang 4y ago> DIY filter bubbles each of a unique configuration Wdym, can you please explain? Decoupling is the only way to be sure of what?
- leetnewb 4y agoThis one looks interesting: https://simplex.chat/ https://simplex.chat/
- _trampeltier 4y agoThreema
- cl3misch 4y ago"Session": it's a Signal fork which uses Tor
- CommitSyn 4y agoIt's a Signal fork that uses Oxen, a Tor fork. It also changes a lot under the hood with regards to encryption, and I'm not smart enough to know if the changes are good or bad. There's not a truly solid secure anonymous implementation that I've found.
- tingle 4y agoThreema doesn't require a phone number.
- super256 4y agoYes, but afaik Threema also doesn't have publicly discoverable channels, which is the feature that was used here. Sooo, not really an alternative (at least for the user whose data got subpoena'd).
- newscracker 4y agoMatrix (with the Element client), Wire and Threema are a few options that don't require phone numbers, offer end-to-end encryption and have mobile clients. IIRC, the chats also sync across devices (with some duration limits measured in weeks) on all these platforms.