|
|
|
|
|
|
by KennyBlanken
1605 days ago
|
|
|
> the homeserver has (!) plaintext access to all traffic on it, Matrix homeservers have plaintext access to whatever is plaintext, though most matrix homeserver software doesn't include built-in functionality for admins to do that sort of thing; it would involve digging through the database(s). DMs are opportunistic e2ee and rooms can be plaintext or E2EE. > besides all the delicious metadata the spooks love and that (e.g.) Signal hands over to them with effusive eagerness, Signal is not Matrix...and Signal does not have any metadata except account creation and last-seen timestamps. Maybe the fact that you can't keep the two communications networks straight is a good sign you're not qualified to be critiquing them. > The Matrix protocol is extremely complex and getting more complex with great speed as they try to get to feature parity with Facebook and Twitter, making it hard to believe one will ever be able to trust it, E2EE or no. That's not how that works. Your comment is...seriously uninformed. |
|
|
I hate the way Signal sells it, like there is zero trust involved and everything is solved by some magic encryption. There is a lot of data the Signal could store, like who is receiving the group message you just send to, that is only guaranteed by their server's source in Github (they could be hosting another thing and you will never know). That said, Signal is still much superior in terms of metadata protection, like the sealed sender feature for direct messages which will take time to arrive in Matrix [1]. I just wished they were more transparent about what they can't store and what they can store but is not storing.
[1] https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/2318