A BBC investigation reveals that Microsoft is permanently banning Palestinians in the U.S. and other countries who use Skype to call relatives in Gaza.

  • bbbbbbbbbbb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    You have to trust someone with these communications, there is no free communication beyond face to face

    • mlaga97@lemmy.mlaga97.space
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Matrix (federated) or Briar (multi-modal P2P) are both good options for getting rid of dependency on central organizations.

    • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Unless you build your own, you have to trust your ISP to move packets, but you don’t have to rely on any third party services or give them your personal info to use social media.

      Fully decentralized, open-source, and encrypted social networks exist. The only servers needed are your computer and the computers of the friends you communicate with. (See: Retroshare )

      They’re just never going to get big because small, personal friend-to-friend networks can’t compete with the network effects of centralized media and a never-ending torrent of dopamine on tap.

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        How do you call a landline number in a war zone through a matrix server?

        • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          I was simply responding to the comment:

          You have to trust someone with these communications, there is no free communication beyond face to face

          the oh-so-clever smart alecks saying “whaddabout ISPs???” forgot about 2-way radio and meshnets

    • cum@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Not true at all lol, have you heard of peer-to-peer?

          • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            5 months ago

            You can have more than one dumb pipe to push bits through, but if the ISP can read your network traffic then you have bigger problems than a single-point-of-failure.

          • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            For the most part the ISP doesn’t have a way to know you are using VoIP to contact people in a particular country (unless you are using a VoIP service owned by the ISP of course).

        • sunzu@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Threema is what signal should have been.

          But I ain’t got in me to start forcing people again lol

          Signal it is until it is proven untrustworthy

          • Zachariah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Yeah, they’re both good (still).

            features Threema Signal
            price $5 / 5€ Free
            account creation phone number optional phone number required
        • suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          They didn’t fuck up, they made a design choice about the scope of the app. Are they also fucking up by not blurring the messages on screen? After all someone could be looking over your shoulder without you realizing it. Maybe Signal should ship with spyglasses.

          • Feyd@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            You’re absolutely right and it’s insane I keep coming across these wild takes from people that clearly don’t understand technology

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            I’m not sure why you think anyone would want a messenger that touts itself for its encryption to not encrypt things.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                5 months ago

                Then it’s weird they are fixing it now. Why aren’t they insisting this doesn’t need to be dealt with because it was a feature, not a bug?

                • suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  It’s weird that apps sometimes change scope and add features that users want? Ones that contributers already did most of the work for?

                  Why aren’t they insisting this doesn’t need to be dealt with because it was a feature, not a bug?

                  That was literally what they have been saying this whole fucking time.

                  “The database key was never intended to be a secret. At-rest encryption is not something that Signal Desktop is currently trying to provide or has ever claimed to provide,” responded the Signal employee.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Did they make an intentional design choice which users should have been okay with like you said the first time or is this a feature users wanted? It can’t be both.

                • subignition@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  It’s really fucking annoying how relentlessly you pick fights with people these days. Wish you’d chill out dude.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Or I’m just speaking my mind and you don’t agree.

                    And aren’t you picking as fight with me right now?

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            That wouldn’t shock me, but he was right that Signal was not addressing a known vulnerability. In fact, denying that it even was a vulnerability.

            For what it’s worth, I trust Telegram even less than Signal. And at least Signal seems to be finally doing something about the problem.

        • cum@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          Damn that’s bad, and Signal’s response was even worse. They knew about it in 2018, for 6 years.

          • sunzu@kbin.run
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            I always felt like signal is there more to satisfy a niche so people feel like their whatsapp is good enough.

            Leadership makes some odd chocies IMHO