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 -- Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org Delray Beach, FL ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
pgpd03qehClxF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
