while i think it'd be nice if those things weren't seen it's not that much, specially if you don't use any real life connection to your user (you'd need to hide your ip i guess). i mean, you can't go to jail for any of those things. if you want even more privacy you can stop federating. i wonder how much of this is because of synapse and if the other servers would do better. they come with tradeoffs, though, synapse is the only one that supports self destructing messages for example afaik.
post
Federation never sees your client IP and device details. The same problem applies to most messaging services and protocol anyways. Do you have any better offerings?
Although that SynExtract tool in the linked paper could be nice.
replies:
Matrix was always a terrible protocol made by Zionists to embed themselves into government and corporate channels whilst posturing itself as 'secure' and independent (self-hosted). Critics said over and over: it's shit. Now those duped are getting defensive. Good ploy mossad. Overall it's been very effective.
This isn't support for Signal either. It's shit too.
The problem is users. Always has been.
replies:
Matrix shall be considered a "metadata-rich protocol" :(
replies:
I wonder if there is a more practical solution of having matrix servers just be encrypted message routers. Maybe even encrypt the specific users address by the home server and then have federated servers just build routing tables for each other.
So my client sends an unencrypted header saying "send this to server A" with the specific user address being encrypted with Server A's public cert, the message content stays encrypted by the users pub cert. The message gets routed over to there distant server, user address decrypted on server, content decrypted on client.
Have server data like rooms, typing status, etc just be private messages ment for users sent by the distant server it's self. Home server only sees the rooms it's managing then.
all 21 comments