[Operators] Future of XMPP Re: The Google issue
pizza at shaftnet.org
Sun Dec 1 03:00:49 UTC 2013
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 02:56:48PM +0100, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> Yes, it would be a vast improvement in case it is implemented. That is
> the reason why I support the manifesto. But what really is needed are
> e2e encryption (and the manifesto says so at the end) and the
> obfuscation of social relations.
Hmm. I assume by the latter you're referring to things like encrypted
presence subscription/notification (and other administrative S2S stuff)?
> And I recently learned that some of the P2P proponents are also
> against interoperability with XMPP because it is a federated protocol
> which is relying on servers... :-/
Nevermind that every single publically visible P2P service relies on
some sort of server (or "supernode" or "tracker" or whatever). And
short of going full TOR (Which I expect be de-facto banned before too
long, in the name of TheChildren(tm)) you're still going to be
vulnerable to traffic analysis which 9/10 times is more useful than the
actual message contents.
To paraphrase the old maxim -- Those who do not understand P2P are
doomed to reimplement it. Poorly.
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Delray Beach, FL ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Operators