3 ms·

Notably, this design lacks reputability, which for some reason they didn't even want (as it might be used by "terrorists"), which led to arguments with Ian Gold

by saurik 4y ago

Notably, this design lacks reputability, which for some reason they didn't even want (as it might be used by "terrorists"), which led to arguments with Ian Goldberg, the developer of Off-the-Record messaging. The arguments on the big tracker about power imbalances were maybe a bit better, but I still personally disagree. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mls/ZJ4e78obXSdYWnxmsNUqGc_qe68/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mls/ZJ4e78obXSdYWnxmsN... https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/50 https://github.com/mlswg/mls-architecture/issues/50

walterbell 4y ago
While deniability would be welcome, the last few years have seen rumblings from various Australia/UK/US stakeholders about possible regulation for E2EE messenger intercept, i.e. even encryption would be compromised in that scenario. Hopefully the recent Apple announcement on E2EE iCloud means that regulators have seen the folly of mass interception. If China (e.g. WeChat) is a predictor of future messaging systems, there may be convergence between messaging and payments. Musk has publicly suggested that Twitter follow in WeChat's footsteps as an "Everything App". If payments and messaging converge, and governments adopt CBDCs for digital legal tender, then we may be looking down the barrel of state-issued digital IDs for online and offline activity. Linux Foundation is promoting blockchain for both software signing and globally interoperable travel/health credentials. Big tech companies each have their own island of semi-verified identities, depending on their proximity to financial services. It's not clear which groups are willing or able to effectively lobby for pseudonymous digital identity.
bentley 4y ago
> reputability The word you’re looking for is “repudiability.” Although one might say that lacking repudiability could be enough for a messaging system to lack reputability ;)

by saurik 4y ago

walterbell 4y ago

While deniability would be welcome, the last few years have seen rumblings from various Australia/UK/US stakeholders about possible regulation for E2EE messenger intercept, i.e. even encryption would be compromised in that scenario. Hopefully the recent Apple announcement on E2EE iCloud means that regulators have seen the folly of mass interception. If China (e.g. WeChat) is a predictor of future messaging systems, there may be convergence between messaging and payments. Musk has publicly suggested that Twitter follow in WeChat's footsteps as an "Everything App". If payments and messaging converge, and governments adopt CBDCs for digital legal tender, then we may be looking down the barrel of state-issued digital IDs for online and offline activity. Linux Foundation is promoting blockchain for both software signing and globally interoperable travel/health credentials. Big tech companies each have their own island of semi-verified identities, depending on their proximity to financial services. It's not clear which groups are willing or able to effectively lobby for pseudonymous digital identity.

bentley 4y ago

> reputability The word you’re looking for is “repudiability.” Although one might say that lacking repudiability could be enough for a messaging system to lack reputability ;)