3 ms·

>Regular reminder Matrix/Element work closely with law-enforcement to provide encrypted comms for them. Thank you for the reminder. Based on that, are you cla

>Regular reminder Matrix/Element work closely with law-enforcement to provide encrypted comms for them. Thank you for the reminder. Based on that, are you claiming that Matrix servers/clients are insecure or have government back doors? If so, what evidence do you have that supports such a claim? If not, why should I care? I'm not a fan of many organizations/individuals. Should I survey them all to create a database of software those folks use and refuse to use any software they use? What value would I derive from such actions? Unless you're claiming the former (evidence please), what difference does it make? I use Matrix servers/clients only on hardware that's under my physical control. And I use free (libre and beer) versions of Matrix implementations, so I'm not even giving the developers any money. Or are you making the argument that LEOs shouldn't have access to secure communications protocols? I guess I'm confused because I don't understand what the issue might be. If you'd elucidate, I'd much appreciate it!

amatecha 3y ago
I didn't claim/assert anything other than what I linked to already in my original post. You don't have to care, and like I said, I don't care if you care or not. I'm just making people aware, because some people _do_ care. It's nice that you personally use matrix on hardware under your physical control. That's rare. The vast vast majority of matrix users have their account on matrix.org and are using Element. I'm glad to hear you are using alternative server and client software. I addressed the other questions at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37602089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37602089
- skeaker 3y ago
  When someone asks "why should I care," the implication is that they want to know why you care. Dodging the question here is an interesting way to respond
  - amatecha 3y ago
    People who want to work closely with authorities probably shouldn't be trusted to provide your secure communication software.
- nobody9999 3y ago
  Since you didn't actually answer the question "why should I care?", perhaps you might deign to answer these instead: >>I'm not a fan of many organizations/individuals. Should I survey them all to create a database of software those folks use and refuse to use any software they use? What value would I derive from such actions? Why are those useful questions? Pick some software -- any software in wide use -- and you'll find that someone you find objectionable is using such software. That includes OS's, browsers, databases, web/application servers, BIOS firmware, chat clients/servers, etc., etc., etc. If using software that's also used by someone whose actions and/or rhetoric are objectionable to you is "capitulation" to those with whom you oppose/disagree, then you should power off all your electronic devices, smash them into little pieces and never look back. But (IMHO, at least) taking such a position takes "guilt by association" to ridiculous extremes, especially when talking about open source software that can be audited and modified to suit your purposes. Don't want your sensitive information shared? Don't share it on platforms not under your control. Full stop. I'll say it again[0], "three can keep a secret. If two are dead." Food for thought, no? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37602606 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37602606

amatecha 3y ago

I didn't claim/assert anything other than what I linked to already in my original post. You don't have to care, and like I said, I don't care if you care or not. I'm just making people aware, because some people _do_ care. It's nice that you personally use matrix on hardware under your physical control. That's rare. The vast vast majority of matrix users have their account on matrix.org and are using Element. I'm glad to hear you are using alternative server and client software. I addressed the other questions at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37602089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37602089

skeaker 3y ago
When someone asks "why should I care," the implication is that they want to know why you care. Dodging the question here is an interesting way to respond
- amatecha 3y ago
  People who want to work closely with authorities probably shouldn't be trusted to provide your secure communication software.
nobody9999 3y ago
Since you didn't actually answer the question "why should I care?", perhaps you might deign to answer these instead: >>I'm not a fan of many organizations/individuals. Should I survey them all to create a database of software those folks use and refuse to use any software they use? What value would I derive from such actions? Why are those useful questions? Pick some software -- any software in wide use -- and you'll find that someone you find objectionable is using such software. That includes OS's, browsers, databases, web/application servers, BIOS firmware, chat clients/servers, etc., etc., etc. If using software that's also used by someone whose actions and/or rhetoric are objectionable to you is "capitulation" to those with whom you oppose/disagree, then you should power off all your electronic devices, smash them into little pieces and never look back. But (IMHO, at least) taking such a position takes "guilt by association" to ridiculous extremes, especially when talking about open source software that can be audited and modified to suit your purposes. Don't want your sensitive information shared? Don't share it on platforms not under your control. Full stop. I'll say it again[0], "three can keep a secret. If two are dead." Food for thought, no? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37602606 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37602606