4 ms·

Yes. Also whoever runs the server can read your DMs. This is also true of big social networks however those companies usually have access controls that prevent

Yes. Also whoever runs the server can read your DMs. This is also true of big social networks however those companies usually have access controls that prevent employees from accessing private data. Some random mastodon server isn’t going to have that.

bin_bash 4y ago
I don't understand why you're being downvoted. I'm not familiar with Mastodon's architecture but I highly doubt DMs have E2E encryption—so the server maintainers must be able to get to DMs. Correct me if @serverholic is wrong here.
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
  We maintain a free messaging server for many years and believe me, there are far more important and interesting things to do for a server operator than looking at some random user DMs. It is simply not interesting.
  - distcs 4y ago
    So the answer is yes, the server operators can look at our random DMs. You may not be interested in looking at them but some other server operator might. So it is a good thing to know this beforehand to know what we are getting into.
  - adwn 4y ago
    Not sure if you're serious, or if this is some attempt at satire? If it's the former: Okay, it's great that you don't feel the temptation to spy on your users, but even the most basic understanding of human nature should tell you that this doesn't generalize to all (or even most) people and organizations that would run a messaging server, free or not.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
      I'm serious and I also know many operators of public servers. Unless you are somebody important/person of interest for various three letter agencies, no one cares for your messages. If you are such person, just run your own server and use e2ee. Other than that, enjoy the convenience and easy message syncing and server side search the unencrypted messaging brings.
  - bin_bash 4y ago
    yikes. OK, then I'm definitely never using Mastodon. At least at Twitter and Facebook the employees have a strong incentive to not breach my privacy expectations other than me not being "interesting".
    - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
      That was precisely the same with every single forum or email server since the beginning of time. And you know what, the capability to log in from anywhere and read your messages trumps privacy concernts for 99% of users. For the rest there are ways to exchange information without risk of it being accessed by third party.
  - serverholic 4y ago
    - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
      > instead of YES WE SHOULD IMPROVE THAT. No, most likely we shouldn't improve on that. If you force an end-to-end encryption on all users, you'll introduce an extreme inconvenience for users so they'll have to do things like identity verification of their messaging partners, do fingerprint matching, and also lose the capability to easily sync messaging history between different devices. Or you could skip on major inconveniences like identity verification, turning your encryption into a security theater [0]. 99,9% of users want convenience and a warm fuzzy feeling of being secure, they don't want to exchange keys and do other nasty stuff that real e2ee requires of the. This was proven in force by Durov, who just promised that his app is the most secure ever, while, in fact, all regular messages in Telegram are unencrypted (except so-called secret chats), and I'm yet to receive a secret chat request in telegram from anyone. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater
- 0x20cowboy 4y ago
  DMs do not have e2e encryption. Don’t use it for non-public things.
- fsflover 4y ago
  I downvoted the parent, because they are missing the point of a public social network. It was never the goal of Mastodon to provide a place for private communication. Use Matrix for that. Mastodon is for speaking publicly.
  - serverholic 4y ago
    A direct message is implied to have a certain level of privacy. By definition they are not public. Mastodon should at least have some way of indicating that the server owners can read their messages.

bin_bash 4y ago

I don't understand why you're being downvoted. I'm not familiar with Mastodon's architecture but I highly doubt DMs have E2E encryption—so the server maintainers must be able to get to DMs. Correct me if @serverholic is wrong here.

Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
We maintain a free messaging server for many years and believe me, there are far more important and interesting things to do for a server operator than looking at some random user DMs. It is simply not interesting.
- distcs 4y ago
  So the answer is yes, the server operators can look at our random DMs. You may not be interested in looking at them but some other server operator might. So it is a good thing to know this beforehand to know what we are getting into.
- adwn 4y ago
  Not sure if you're serious, or if this is some attempt at satire? If it's the former: Okay, it's great that you don't feel the temptation to spy on your users, but even the most basic understanding of human nature should tell you that this doesn't generalize to all (or even most) people and organizations that would run a messaging server, free or not.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
    I'm serious and I also know many operators of public servers. Unless you are somebody important/person of interest for various three letter agencies, no one cares for your messages. If you are such person, just run your own server and use e2ee. Other than that, enjoy the convenience and easy message syncing and server side search the unencrypted messaging brings.
- bin_bash 4y ago
  yikes. OK, then I'm definitely never using Mastodon. At least at Twitter and Facebook the employees have a strong incentive to not breach my privacy expectations other than me not being "interesting".
  - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
    That was precisely the same with every single forum or email server since the beginning of time. And you know what, the capability to log in from anywhere and read your messages trumps privacy concernts for 99% of users. For the rest there are ways to exchange information without risk of it being accessed by third party.
- serverholic 4y ago
  - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
    > instead of YES WE SHOULD IMPROVE THAT. No, most likely we shouldn't improve on that. If you force an end-to-end encryption on all users, you'll introduce an extreme inconvenience for users so they'll have to do things like identity verification of their messaging partners, do fingerprint matching, and also lose the capability to easily sync messaging history between different devices. Or you could skip on major inconveniences like identity verification, turning your encryption into a security theater [0]. 99,9% of users want convenience and a warm fuzzy feeling of being secure, they don't want to exchange keys and do other nasty stuff that real e2ee requires of the. This was proven in force by Durov, who just promised that his app is the most secure ever, while, in fact, all regular messages in Telegram are unencrypted (except so-called secret chats), and I'm yet to receive a secret chat request in telegram from anyone. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater
0x20cowboy 4y ago
DMs do not have e2e encryption. Don’t use it for non-public things.
fsflover 4y ago
I downvoted the parent, because they are missing the point of a public social network. It was never the goal of Mastodon to provide a place for private communication. Use Matrix for that. Mastodon is for speaking publicly.
- serverholic 4y ago
  A direct message is implied to have a certain level of privacy. By definition they are not public. Mastodon should at least have some way of indicating that the server owners can read their messages.