On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 07:26:44PM +0200, Nadim Kobeissi wrote: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Nathan of Guardian < > nat...@guardianproject.info> wrote: > > On 2012-12-21 20:22, Brian Conley wrote: > > This is a long way of asking, is Goohke Hangout functionally better? > Is anything else? Or, how do we get someone to develop a convenient > p2p chatting tool that is also pleasurable to use? > > > I personally can't wait for Cryptocat A/V edition! Nadim, hurry up please. > :) > > > I hear this a lot — that's a 2014 goal if there ever was one.
Somebody was asking "why do (at risk) groups use Skype", and it's worth underlining out a couple of reasons, beyond convenient, ubiquitous, multi-platform audio-video chat. * Permanent, multi-user chat rooms. This is what makes Cryptocat such a useful addition: there was a long period where activists didn't have a known alternative to this feature that didn't fail badly (IRC over SSL? Hard to set up, and what if one person doesn't encrypt? etc), especially combined with: * Live audio-visual contact as a form of authentication. The most comprehensible threat for online text conversations is that you're just not talking to the right person/people. I think it's important to bear this in mind because sometimes the discussion around Skype revolves around one-on-one videochat, and that doesn't seem to be the dominant use in my conversations with at-risk users. d. > > > > > +n > > > -- > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https:// > mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > > > -- > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
