▲ 2015 ▼ Happy #GlobalSwitchDay (discuss.tchncs.de) submitted 2 years ago by squirrel@discuss.tchncs.de to c/fediverse@lemmy.world 489 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) it's not even true information, the new tech stack is zero trust permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) What does this mean? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Zero trust means there’s no trust assumed on the protocol - I.e. it distrusts all actors and the protocol takes steps to work in that trustless environment. I don’t know how that applies specifically to matrix. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So the guy above the guy avobe me was supposedly wrong? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago Like I said, I don’t know the inner workings of Matrix. But according to the second guy that isn’t you, Matrix has a new tech stack that is zero trust. Now, there are many ways in which that can be true and I don’t know if what Matrix has right now can indeed be considered dissident-level privacy. It’s good enough for my threat level (I basically just use it for software support). If I were planning to overthrow a regime, I’d likely go with SimpleX or some other privacy-first messengers. permalink fedilink source parent [–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) the new cryptographic protocol protects metadata, like signal. the servers know nothing about any encrypted chats permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So the guy above the guy avobe me was wrong? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago sorta, the old clients still have bad cryptography and the new client isn't fully featured yet permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) What does this mean? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Zero trust means there’s no trust assumed on the protocol - I.e. it distrusts all actors and the protocol takes steps to work in that trustless environment. I don’t know how that applies specifically to matrix. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So the guy above the guy avobe me was supposedly wrong? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago Like I said, I don’t know the inner workings of Matrix. But according to the second guy that isn’t you, Matrix has a new tech stack that is zero trust. Now, there are many ways in which that can be true and I don’t know if what Matrix has right now can indeed be considered dissident-level privacy. It’s good enough for my threat level (I basically just use it for software support). If I were planning to overthrow a regime, I’d likely go with SimpleX or some other privacy-first messengers. permalink fedilink source parent [–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) the new cryptographic protocol protects metadata, like signal. the servers know nothing about any encrypted chats permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So the guy above the guy avobe me was wrong? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago sorta, the old clients still have bad cryptography and the new client isn't fully featured yet permalink fedilink source parent
[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Zero trust means there’s no trust assumed on the protocol - I.e. it distrusts all actors and the protocol takes steps to work in that trustless environment. I don’t know how that applies specifically to matrix. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So the guy above the guy avobe me was supposedly wrong? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago Like I said, I don’t know the inner workings of Matrix. But according to the second guy that isn’t you, Matrix has a new tech stack that is zero trust. Now, there are many ways in which that can be true and I don’t know if what Matrix has right now can indeed be considered dissident-level privacy. It’s good enough for my threat level (I basically just use it for software support). If I were planning to overthrow a regime, I’d likely go with SimpleX or some other privacy-first messengers. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So the guy above the guy avobe me was supposedly wrong? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago Like I said, I don’t know the inner workings of Matrix. But according to the second guy that isn’t you, Matrix has a new tech stack that is zero trust. Now, there are many ways in which that can be true and I don’t know if what Matrix has right now can indeed be considered dissident-level privacy. It’s good enough for my threat level (I basically just use it for software support). If I were planning to overthrow a regime, I’d likely go with SimpleX or some other privacy-first messengers. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 years ago Like I said, I don’t know the inner workings of Matrix. But according to the second guy that isn’t you, Matrix has a new tech stack that is zero trust. Now, there are many ways in which that can be true and I don’t know if what Matrix has right now can indeed be considered dissident-level privacy. It’s good enough for my threat level (I basically just use it for software support). If I were planning to overthrow a regime, I’d likely go with SimpleX or some other privacy-first messengers. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) the new cryptographic protocol protects metadata, like signal. the servers know nothing about any encrypted chats permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So the guy above the guy avobe me was wrong? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago sorta, the old clients still have bad cryptography and the new client isn't fully featured yet permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Elrecoal19_0@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So the guy above the guy avobe me was wrong? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago sorta, the old clients still have bad cryptography and the new client isn't fully featured yet permalink fedilink source parent
[–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago sorta, the old clients still have bad cryptography and the new client isn't fully featured yet permalink fedilink source parent