Article about encryption technology that doesn’t even mention the ol’ reliable PGP you can use over any communication channel?
User error is high with this one. Also doesn’t have PFS.
But you’re right it should be mentioned.
Region locked to USA so here’s a screenshot.
Next time can you just copy and paste the text instead? Not everyone can read text from images.
The FBI also doesn’t want back doors… They just want a way for law enforcement to access any encrypted messages they want to.
https://www.thesslstore.com/blog/us-senator-calls-fbi-director-dumb-stance-encryption/
How about we just do away with unencrypted messaging all-together?
And this is why I dont like matrix.
It would already be mostly that way, but Apple, being the POS company that it is, refuses to switch their messaging system to RCS like everyone else. Apple wants to use only their proprietary imessage and it’s not compatible with everyone else. They are why all messages aren’t encrypted.
They’re also being forced/pressured into changing this in the near future, I believe.
lol RCS doesn’t support encryption 🤣
Wrong on both counts; Apple does support RCS, and RCS doesn’t support encryption. Google messages can be encrypted, but that is done using a proprietary handshake that Google implemented on top of the RCS protocol.
That doesn’t change the fact that Apple implemented RCS after a lot of kicking and screaming. They also refused to make iMessage portable or pose any viable alternative.
They’re finally working with Google to allow RCS encryption with iPhones at some point in the future IIRC. However, Apple is majorly to blame for delays.
My understanding is that Apple have implemented RCS, which funnily enough, does not even support encryption yet. Google had to roll their own proprietary add-on.
https://www.macrumors.com/2024/09/18/end-to-end-encryption-rcs-messages/
My work iPhone has RCS. So I believe they already have been pressured.
Showed this information to my boomer mother who then asked my also tech illiterate step father what he thought.
“We don’t send sensitive information through texts.”
The ignorance almost physically hurts… Thinking that only the actual message content is important.
Or ignoring the pictures we send and the private things I talk about with my mom.
Do I think that specifically my information would be useful to China? Likely not. But I also have no idea what all is possible with that kind of information in the aggregate.
At the very least, I assume they will use it to manipulate us even more with disinformation.
But I also have no idea what all is possible with that kind of information in the aggregate
so does your mom and the general public. This idea and its impact is far too remote to people’s day to day life.
- “Yes, they can collect all they want, why should I care?”
- “My data is too insignificant to be meaningful for anyone, LMAO, do you think I am some kind of a CEO?”
it may help to try coming out with a story or incident that they can relate to. then again most of the time these stories will sound like a conspiracy theory,
Easier, imagine half the strangers you’ve met during the day reading your messages aloud with orcish laughs and judging the pictures.
I’m actually really not concerned about foreign governments spying on me but I am bothered by my own government, the guys with the guns who can arrest me, doing it.
Tho I suspect if the government is recommending ways to avoid messages being intercepted, they’ve already cracked how to intercept them.
What’s rich is the FBI promoting WhatsApp. Yeah, not a fucking chance.
Not to be too conspiratorial, but isn’t that a pretty good indicator that Meta capitulated and put a backdoor in WhatsApp for them?
Yeah we can all trust Meta, who never should have been allowed to purchase Whatsapp for antitrust reasons exactly like this. Whatsapp was innovative and very successful outside the US, rather than compete with their own decent product Facebook just absorbed them and gulped their users.
That is why Signal exists.
Messages between two Apple devices are safe, and messages between two Android devices are safe, but messages between an Apple device and and Android device are vulnerable.
This is not very accurate. Some Android devices come with Google Messages, which will use Google’s encrypted version of RCS if the carrier supports it. People who don’t know what all of that means should not assume their messages are encrypted.
Anyone know if Google Voice is encrypted? I can read copies of my texts online so I’m thinking no. I’ve felt like the service has outlived its usefulness for me and that would be the final straw.
Google Voice is definitely not end to end encrypted.
Yes it almost certainly is, though how they manage who can decrypt is another story
I see no reason to believe that it is.
I find it useful when outside the USA to be able to communicate with American luddites who refuse to install messaging apps.
It’s Google. Of course not.
Use Signal or XMPP+OMEMO or anything else.
Mandate social media to expose an open API and use the chat function with an OTR plugin.
The solutions are all old.
It’s just interesting how it all went from promotion of corporate surveillance to comms protection when supposed corporate shills won the election.
It would be great if XMPP were to rise again.
Lol no. I like being able to send messages to someone who isn’t online at the same time
It went out of popularity for a reason. I’d love a new protocol with XMPP’s mistakes fixed.
BTW, OMEMO highlights one of those - it’s not as good as Signal by which it is inspired. Basically no metadata protection, which means that it’s as good as OTR with multiple devices.
Some kind of Signal with federation (and good clients, not like signal-desktop) would be interesting. Maybe even p2p with some kind of relays (like in NOSTR) for history, offline messages, some kind of Telegram channels and such.
Why do you suggest OTR? It’s outdated, modern XMPP clients moved to OMEMO for a reason.
It’s not outdated, it’s just differently intended. OTR you can use over any IM allowing custom clients. OMEMO requires support in the protocol.
OTR is better than inline PGP for that purpose, because of temporary keys.
So if you have a legislation mandating that a certain IM network or social platform supports open API for custom clients, you can use OTR over it, you can use inline PGP over it, but you can’t use OMEMO over it.
Is Matrix Protocol good?
I don’t know.
That article may as well be sponsored by WhatsApp. Zero direct mentions of Signal, but tons pushing people to WhatsApp. That’s a bit disappointing.Edit: I was wrong, it does talk about Signal as well.
The second half of the article is about Signal.
It sucks they mention WhatsApp first, but I think the bigger omission is that they don’t mention non-US entities or anything you can self-host and federate like Matrix.
Oh, fair enough then!
ETA: Yes, the lack of mentions of Matrix, etc are a bit disappointing. But I think Matrix is waaay outside their target democratic.
Yeeahhh, they’re talking to like Grandma who barely knows what a text message is
Their target democratic is still in the matrix.
Matrix isn’t super private though. It’s halfway there, but compared to something like XMPP, it falls short due to the fact that any instance a user federates with gets a gigantic copy of all of their metadata, and the server operator can do whatever they want with it. So all you would have to do is spin up a new host, message a target user and get them to respond, and you’re done.
any instance a user federates with gets a gigantic copy of all of their metadata,
No, it does not. Instances get metadata only for the chat rooms in which they participate, not all of a user’s metadata.
When chatting with someone on Matrix like you would with text messaging, only your instance and your contact’s instance are involved. Because they have to be, in order to exchange messages. Just like every other chat protocol that uses servers, including XMPP.
Signal or WIRE.
When the article about end to end user encryption messaging platforms mentions neither I have to question why it’s even an article.
Signal or WIRE.
It does mention Signal lower down the article
