6 ms·
Yes, but in the IM context it is creating confusion, and Google's IM team must surely be aware of this, so it stands to reason that this is intentional confusio
by sdfjkl 13y ago
Yes, but in the IM context it is creating confusion, and Google's IM team must surely be aware of this, so it stands to reason that this is intentional confusion.
- jrochkind1 13y agoOh sure, it 'stands to reason' that anyone someone must surely be aware of was also intentional, noone is ever surely aware of anything that was not planned that way. What?
- GhotiFish 13y agoI... think I agree with you. Can we get a clarity edit?
- untog 13y agoSorry, I don't agree. "Off the record" is a term that is obviously and simply applicable to an IM context. It's the fault of the people who made an app called Off The Record that someone else has used the same term.
- anonymoushn 13y agoThe simple and obvious meaning is encryption with PFS, right? It's not as though you can prevent the person you're speaking to from logging, and given that he or she could be using an XMPP client not written by Google, neither can anyone else. The "Disable logging on my end" feature should probably just be called "Disable logging on my end."
- jamesaguilar 13y agoIt disables logging on the other end, too, if the other end is a Google hangouts user.
- tedunangst 13y agoIf I'm speaking to a journalist and I say "this is off the record", it doesn't magically disable their tape recorder, either.
- BarkMore 13y agoIt's plausible that Google named the feature before learning about OTR. Google's off the record chat and OTR were both announced in 2004.
- jbeda 13y agoI was on the Google Talk team at the time when we introduced this feature and I can confirm we had no knowledge of other products called 'Off The Record'.
- qq66 13y agoNo, "off the record" is the commonly used phrase that implies that the conversation isn't for redistribution, but also that such a guarantee is based on your trust of your counterparty and not on any technical barriers to logging.