4 ms·

Somewhat related - Can someone explain this to me? France and Germany want to lessen dependence on American organizations, so they choose Matrix, also an Americ

by nxor 1y ago

Somewhat related - Can someone explain this to me? France and Germany want to lessen dependence on American organizations, so they choose Matrix, also an American organization.

dijit 1y ago
If it's open source (and libre software) then it's not as important where the main development offices are (or where the company is incorporated). You still have control. Seems like the majority of the team are in the EU anyway: https://matrix.org/foundation/about/ https://matrix.org/foundation/about/
- nxor 1y ago
  Thank you, and I see it's registered in the UK. I think it started in the US? Well, not like it's relevant anymore. And can you answer this question: If everyone has secure chat, then won't that benefit criminal organizations? I struggle to understand the love for private communication when it seems like that would benefit, for example, religious sects and sex abuse rings. NOT that I like that Zuckerborg keeping all my messages.
  - dijit 1y ago
    > If everyone has secure chat, then won't that benefit criminal organizations? I struggle to understand the love for private communication when it seems like that would benefit, for example, religious sects and sex abuse rings. NOT that I like that Zuckerborg keeping all my messages. Yes, sort of. The thing is, the government is already not permitted to wiretap people, at least without reasonable suspicion. Wiretaps themselves are not admissible in court, and can only be offered as a mechanism to correlate behaviour anyway. At least in the UK. (Which, is ironic when you consider what's going on there with online speech, but I digress). Factually speaking, in order to do a crime you have to physically do a crime, the police knowing when and where do not require access to your communications to figure out. They will sting people, get people to turn on other people or simply catch red-handed when doing ordinary police work. If we legitimately believe what the governments of the world are saying: that we need to embolden the police. Then funding them properly is the right start, yet nobody seems to be doing that. The EU has been making cross border communication easier though, which is in-line with emboldening the police, so I'll give them that. Having more information will do very little to help, for the same reason that phone taps aren't given out freely (and never have been) - because even if you have the data, you have to choose how to act on it, and you'd need the resources to investigate and follow-through. There is a distinct irony that unencrypted SMS is more secure than online messengers, because there are legal protections.
    - nxor 1y ago
      Funding police outweighs the benefit organized crime may get from communicating securely ?
      - dijit 1y ago
        Very much so.
      - jcynix 1y ago
        So you think that if normal people aren't allowed to use encryption that would hinder organized crime to use encryption? :-0
        nxor 1y ago
        Are you European? I don't understand that use of hinder. You mean prevent from using? Then no, I don't think preventing normal people from using encryption will prevent criminals from using encryption, and didn't mean to imply that I'm not referring to hinder meaning prevent, I'm referring to how "hinder someone to use" is not grammatical. https://www.merriam-webster.com/sentences/hinder https://www.merriam-webster.com/sentences/hinder
        jcynix 1y ago
        To "hinder" means to make it more difficult to use something, or "to restrict" or "to prevent" someone from using it. https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/hinder https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/hinder
  - detaro 1y ago
    Freedoms tend to also benefit criminals, yes. That's kind of unavoidable.
    - nxor 1y ago
      Then crime will increase
      - fsflover 1y ago
        See also: https://support.torproject.org/abuse/#abuse_what-about-criminals https://support.torproject.org/abuse/#abuse_what-about-crimi...
  - bigstrat2003 1y ago
    > If everyone has secure chat, then won't that benefit criminal organizations? Probably. But criminal organizations also benefit from having electricity, or cars, or a million other things that we all would be much worse off if we didn't have them. Just because something benefits criminal organizations as a side effect is not really a reason to not do it for the benefit of ordinary citizens.
    - nxor 1y ago
      My point wasn't that we should or shouldn't have it. I just get the impression that the same people calling for privacy will be highly outraged the next time, for example, an Austin Wolf (gay porn 'star' who used Telegram to share thousands of files showing abuse of children) situation arises, or it's inevitably revealed that religious sect xyz coordinated over it. Europeans trash talk Telegram (and that is fine), but somehow Matrix is different? How?
      - bigstrat2003 1y ago
        Oh I don't think it's different at all in that respect. I think that many people are very ignorant about the inherent double-edged sword that is freedom, and think that it's possible to deny it to only bad people. On top of that, many people don't particularly value private communications, considering it to be a theoretical issue that doesn't affect them. So yeah there will certainly be outrage in cases like you mentioned.
      - heinrich5991 1y ago
        Telegram isn't end-to-end encrypted btw, so when law enforcement asks for data, Telegram actually has it.
        nxor 1y ago
        Oh, I did know that. Other than that, I don't know much more
jeroenhd 1y ago
Matrix, the organisation, takes care of the open source side of things. BwMessenger is a partnership with "ELEMENT SOFTWARE SARL" (according to https://messenger.bwi.de/datenschutz https://messenger.bwi.de/datenschutz), the French entity of the commercial side of the people originally behind the open Matrix ecosystem (https://element.io/legal/company-information https://element.io/legal/company-information). I'm not sure why the French entity is doing business with the Germans as Element also has a German entity, but either way the American side is not the one doing the work. For the American entity, a lot (most?) of the work that's not from unrelated open source contributors seems to be coming in from either EU countries or the UK.
- nxor 1y ago
  Thank you, it looks like my assumption was wrong
  - Arathorn 1y ago
    Matrix isn’t US at all; it’s a UK Non Profit. Element is also UK headquartered, albeit with French/German/US subsidiaries when selling to those respective governments. BWI buy via France because when we started working with them we didn’t have a German legal entity yet.
    - nxor 1y ago
      It appears to have been started by Americans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_(protocol) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_(protocol), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdocs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdocs Who perhaps chose the UK in an effort to distance themselves from the US As I said, I see now my assumption was wrong
      - tguvot 1y ago
        Amdocs is actually Israeli company
        1y ago
jazzyjackson 1y ago
Signal and any kind of Slack SaaS: US infrastructure, US law around data governance. Matrix (and Zulip, for that matter, and mattermost too) encourage self-hosting on your own infrastructure, or at least in-country, even if the upstream security patches are coming from US developers.
- nxor 1y ago
  Thank you, that helps me understand it better Oh, and as everyone has said. Only some of the developers are from the US
JadedBlueEyes 1y ago
the Matrix foundation is a UK company.
- jonesjohnson 1y ago
  so what? all the specification and all the code is open.

by nxor 1y ago

Somewhat related - Can someone explain this to me? France and Germany want to lessen dependence on American organizations, so they choose Matrix, also an American organization.

dijit 1y ago

If it's open source (and libre software) then it's not as important where the main development offices are (or where the company is incorporated). You still have control. Seems like the majority of the team are in the EU anyway: https://matrix.org/foundation/about/ https://matrix.org/foundation/about/

nxor 1y ago
Thank you, and I see it's registered in the UK. I think it started in the US? Well, not like it's relevant anymore. And can you answer this question: If everyone has secure chat, then won't that benefit criminal organizations? I struggle to understand the love for private communication when it seems like that would benefit, for example, religious sects and sex abuse rings. NOT that I like that Zuckerborg keeping all my messages.
- dijit 1y ago
  > If everyone has secure chat, then won't that benefit criminal organizations? I struggle to understand the love for private communication when it seems like that would benefit, for example, religious sects and sex abuse rings. NOT that I like that Zuckerborg keeping all my messages. Yes, sort of. The thing is, the government is already not permitted to wiretap people, at least without reasonable suspicion. Wiretaps themselves are not admissible in court, and can only be offered as a mechanism to correlate behaviour anyway. At least in the UK. (Which, is ironic when you consider what's going on there with online speech, but I digress). Factually speaking, in order to do a crime you have to physically do a crime, the police knowing when and where do not require access to your communications to figure out. They will sting people, get people to turn on other people or simply catch red-handed when doing ordinary police work. If we legitimately believe what the governments of the world are saying: that we need to embolden the police. Then funding them properly is the right start, yet nobody seems to be doing that. The EU has been making cross border communication easier though, which is in-line with emboldening the police, so I'll give them that. Having more information will do very little to help, for the same reason that phone taps aren't given out freely (and never have been) - because even if you have the data, you have to choose how to act on it, and you'd need the resources to investigate and follow-through. There is a distinct irony that unencrypted SMS is more secure than online messengers, because there are legal protections.
  - nxor 1y ago
    Funding police outweighs the benefit organized crime may get from communicating securely ?
    - dijit 1y ago
      Very much so.
    - jcynix 1y ago
      So you think that if normal people aren't allowed to use encryption that would hinder organized crime to use encryption? :-0
      - nxor 1y ago
        Are you European? I don't understand that use of hinder. You mean prevent from using? Then no, I don't think preventing normal people from using encryption will prevent criminals from using encryption, and didn't mean to imply that I'm not referring to hinder meaning prevent, I'm referring to how "hinder someone to use" is not grammatical. https://www.merriam-webster.com/sentences/hinder https://www.merriam-webster.com/sentences/hinder
        jcynix 1y ago
        To "hinder" means to make it more difficult to use something, or "to restrict" or "to prevent" someone from using it. https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/hinder https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/hinder
- detaro 1y ago
  Freedoms tend to also benefit criminals, yes. That's kind of unavoidable.
  - nxor 1y ago
    Then crime will increase
    - fsflover 1y ago
      See also: https://support.torproject.org/abuse/#abuse_what-about-criminals https://support.torproject.org/abuse/#abuse_what-about-crimi...
- bigstrat2003 1y ago
  > If everyone has secure chat, then won't that benefit criminal organizations? Probably. But criminal organizations also benefit from having electricity, or cars, or a million other things that we all would be much worse off if we didn't have them. Just because something benefits criminal organizations as a side effect is not really a reason to not do it for the benefit of ordinary citizens.
  - nxor 1y ago
    My point wasn't that we should or shouldn't have it. I just get the impression that the same people calling for privacy will be highly outraged the next time, for example, an Austin Wolf (gay porn 'star' who used Telegram to share thousands of files showing abuse of children) situation arises, or it's inevitably revealed that religious sect xyz coordinated over it. Europeans trash talk Telegram (and that is fine), but somehow Matrix is different? How?
    - bigstrat2003 1y ago
      Oh I don't think it's different at all in that respect. I think that many people are very ignorant about the inherent double-edged sword that is freedom, and think that it's possible to deny it to only bad people. On top of that, many people don't particularly value private communications, considering it to be a theoretical issue that doesn't affect them. So yeah there will certainly be outrage in cases like you mentioned.
    - heinrich5991 1y ago
      Telegram isn't end-to-end encrypted btw, so when law enforcement asks for data, Telegram actually has it.
      - nxor 1y ago
        Oh, I did know that. Other than that, I don't know much more

jeroenhd 1y ago

Matrix, the organisation, takes care of the open source side of things. BwMessenger is a partnership with "ELEMENT SOFTWARE SARL" (according to https://messenger.bwi.de/datenschutz https://messenger.bwi.de/datenschutz), the French entity of the commercial side of the people originally behind the open Matrix ecosystem (https://element.io/legal/company-information https://element.io/legal/company-information). I'm not sure why the French entity is doing business with the Germans as Element also has a German entity, but either way the American side is not the one doing the work. For the American entity, a lot (most?) of the work that's not from unrelated open source contributors seems to be coming in from either EU countries or the UK.

nxor 1y ago
Thank you, it looks like my assumption was wrong
- Arathorn 1y ago
  Matrix isn’t US at all; it’s a UK Non Profit. Element is also UK headquartered, albeit with French/German/US subsidiaries when selling to those respective governments. BWI buy via France because when we started working with them we didn’t have a German legal entity yet.
  - nxor 1y ago
    It appears to have been started by Americans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_(protocol) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_(protocol), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdocs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdocs Who perhaps chose the UK in an effort to distance themselves from the US As I said, I see now my assumption was wrong
    - tguvot 1y ago
      Amdocs is actually Israeli company
      - 1y ago

jazzyjackson 1y ago

Signal and any kind of Slack SaaS: US infrastructure, US law around data governance. Matrix (and Zulip, for that matter, and mattermost too) encourage self-hosting on your own infrastructure, or at least in-country, even if the upstream security patches are coming from US developers.

nxor 1y ago
Thank you, that helps me understand it better Oh, and as everyone has said. Only some of the developers are from the US

JadedBlueEyes 1y ago

the Matrix foundation is a UK company.

jonesjohnson 1y ago
so what? all the specification and all the code is open.