zako

joined 2 years ago
[–] zako@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

So, Matrix (federated) and XMPP (federated) would also have "metadata leaks". I imagine there would be metadata exchanged between federated servers and in addition the E2EE of XMPP and Matrix is not so good/modern as Signal's. When Signal-Whatsapp interoperability is mentioned, all people is worried about metadata leaks but it seems that concern dissapears when federation of Matrix or XMPP is mentioned.

Apart from that and one very personal opinion, I always connected Matrix to IRC, I mean, it is used more for the groups functionality than for the person-to-person functionality. And IRC was never considered an Instant Messaging alternative. But this is a very personal feel.

[–] zako@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Best of luck also for your next fork. Please share with us your improvements in metadata privacy.

[–] zako@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

It is easy, even if interoperability is enabled, do not send messages out of Signal. It would be your option. But other people with non military-grade privacy requirements could benefit of improved privacy when it sends messages to whatsapp users from signal app because signal app is foss and signal would enforce better security and privacy than whatsapp app. Signal would gain traction and it could reach more people willing to abandon Meta and corps.

[–] zako@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

So, we had people who loved to send unencrypted SMS messages with Signal. And now we have people who opposes to send encrypted E2EE messages because they could leak supposedly a lot of metadata such as "when the message was delivered, who it was sent to and more" and it would be the end of privacy in Signal.

We should not forget that this only happens if you send messages out of Signal. This would be optional for every user of Signal.

Interoperatibility is the CORE of Internet. Silos are contrary to the idea of Internet. This is an opportunity to interconnect systems, to boost innovation and to give the opportunity to signal and others to gain users, which is now almost impossible with the current monopoly of whatsapp in Europe.

I imagine all the extremist of privacy in Signal with a Proton email account. And I imagine them only sending/receiving emails from other Proton email accounts. Sending to SPAM or to the delete folder every other email because other emails do not achieve the privacy requirements of Proton. In fact, the only real good solution for privacy with Email is to delete the Email account.

[–] zako@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (6 children)

I would like to hear more specific details about the loss of privacy that would require the integration with whatsapp for signal users.

  • E2EE would be broken?
  • which specific metadata of signal users would be exposed (metadata that is not now required by signal)? less metadata of current whatsapp users would be required?
  • integration could be a user option?

Because I see a lot of fear but few details that justify it.

[–] zako@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

I also am waiting for news on this. I think many users lack of an european view. In Europe Whatsapp is a monopoly for Instant Messaging, look at https://www.statista.com/statistics/1005178/share-population-using-whatsapp-europe/. And you do not break a Monopoly with "remove whatsapp and use only signal". I only have 1 contact in Signal, two years ago I had 5 contacts. If I remove Whatsapp, I lack of IM. Period.

Signal has E2EE encryption, Signal collects very few metadata. If they collect very few metadata, they have very few metadata to expose to Whatsapp. If Whatsapp forces them to provide more metadata, they could argue and even ask for arbitration with the European Comission.

But the lack of interest to ever consider the interoperalibity seems to me they are not interested in the european market. They do not want to grow in Europe to become the best privacy-respectful IM solution (with users).

[–] zako@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Thanks for all your answers! I will check some of the alternatives to duckdns.

[–] zako@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I have a domain... but I think DynDNS is not always available for every domain or by every domain seller?

[–] zako@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

In my case, there is no IP change. However, the TTL of entries seems to be 60 seconds and when Cloudfare/Google asks for the new A record, it sometimes fails. I am getting this error message from Cloudfare when I try to solve host.sub-domain.duckdns.org

EDE: 22 (No Reachable Authority): (time limit exceeded)

 

I feel that sometimes resolution of sub-domain.duckdns.org and host.sub-domain.duckdns.org fails with empty result or even timeout result. Tested resolution against Google and Cloudfare DNS servers.

Do you have a similar behaviour?

[–] zako@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

rm -rf /var

I don't know what I was thinking on to type it 😅