Joe Bidet
Random Joe, or should I say… GNU/Joe
- 0 Posts
- 22 Comments
am glad that https://simplex.chat doesn’t even need to touch sensitive personal data strong selectors such as phone numbers or email addresses!
also now that i think of it:
- there is now a discovery mechanism of some sort… but otherwise it’s a feature and not a bug that you can only identify people whom you had an initial exchange with. much preferable than something that Signal that without asking (and without opting out?) will by default access all your contacts and match them through the use of a strong selector (phone number) also:
- i think with the minimal knowledge the server has of its users (and the no-identity concept) this really limits risk. Also it means that for the most tight of security models, one can use their own server (which is not feasible with most other chat protocols)
so all in all: go simplex! :)
PInephone! A bit of work, requiring to not being shy opening the hood of a linux system. but totally worth it, the reward is freedom and its continuous cycle of collective learning…
(although the Pinephone is not really a “smartphone” in the sense most people use that word: a restricted computer that allows to run wallgarden applications… a pinephone doesnt natively run “smartphone apps” and is more like a full-blown, general purpose computer running GNU/linux that also contains a modem enabling calls, sms and data…)
What an uneducated red herring! Simplex is not named “Herpes”… in “Herpes simplex”, “Simplex” is an adjective…
“Dude! why would you name a messaging app after a latin adjective dude!”…
Now can we resume talking about messaging protocols, and why Simplex is one of the most promising, way much better than Signal when it comes to privacy, as it enables communications without disclosing identity?
I beg to disagree: the global interception capacities of the NSA in 2012 (as showed in the very few 2013 documents from Ed. Snowden that were made public) clearly were enough to routinely de-anonymize tor. By owning a certain percentage of the global internet traffic, you de facto own tor (can very precisely correlate what comes in and what goes out, and do that retrospectively when needed).
and that was 10+ years aog…
Association with spooks is a red flag, for the multiple, endless ways they have been doing their shitfuckery, endangering the general public, the exceptional US citizens, and information/communication security at large… by weakening standards, by corrupting corporations to introduce (or leave open) some bugs, by infiltrating development teams, by pressuring operators to grant full access, by breaking and entering, etc…
Anyone who doesnt see that as a problem has to be considered as part of it. Simple, basic rule.
what does it have to do with Google’s business model being mass-surveillance, and/or them being caught several times collaborating with the NSA, the US army, etc.?
I agree that the NSA backdooring stuff is a problem too… (or even a different facet of the same problem…) Yet, one doesn’t invalidate the other…
speaking of “normies” is elitist, because the term is used usually people privileged/experienced with knowledge about technology to describe people who don’t have this privilege/experience. It is implying that there would be a class of (sub-)humans who are not capable of taking the same path as the person who employs this term. I stand by the term “elitist”. In a world of diverse people, life-paths and needs, in my own experience everybody is capable of understanding the political reasons to use a piece of software over another one (because one company sucks, because their model of centralization is detrimental to freedom, because they got shady funding, because they pretend to be something else but bar free software authors to modify their software, because they’re from the USA, etc.). Everyone has their own way of understanding these things. Everyone has some arguments that will resonate better than others. Pretty much the same way you probably decided to not install Facebook messenger. Well the good news is: everybody is capable of understanding these things. It may take time and effort, it may make elitist people realize it is not as easy as they first thought it would be, and require to fail and try again. It requires efforts and a humble approach as to listen to these people and take them where they are and walk a bit along the way with them.
My personal experience is that most people are capable of understanding such things. It may take time, but everyone is capable.
I also saw tons of elitist tech-enthusiasts and other tech-savvies “bros” not even addressing who they call “normies” out of pure lazyness, to avoid to speak outside of their own comfort zone and question their own status, and to avoid sharing their elitist knowledge.
-> “‘normies’ won’t do that” = “i am too lazy to engage meaningfully with people who do not know the same things as i know.”
That’s a major part of the problem. Elitist feedback loop…