Table or mouseover showing instant messenger pro/con #596

New Issue

jonah · 2018-11-17T14:23:02Z

ghost commented

2018-11-17 14:23:02 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I think for the instant messenger section we should have a table or a mouse over. Some sort of way to make a comparison so a user can decide what is right for them.

For example Matrix is great for features and interoperability and end to end security but it does come at the cost of having certain metadata for it to function.

Tox is great because it is server less but that comes at the cost of certain features like push notifications (mobile) platforms which in turn translates to battery lifetime on the device, read receipts and other server side messages.

Ricochet is great because it is anonymous, but obviously comes at the cost of group chat and A/V capabilities.

That sort of thing. I have been thinking about this the last few days and I think it would be a good idea if we brainstormed some ways this could be elegantly implemented.

I think for the instant messenger section we should have a table or a mouse over. Some sort of way to make a comparison so a user can decide what is right for them. For example Matrix is great for features and interoperability and end to end security but it does come at the cost of having certain metadata for it to function. Tox is great because it is server less but that comes at the cost of certain features like push notifications (mobile) platforms which in turn translates to battery lifetime on the device, read receipts and other server side messages. Ricochet is great because it is anonymous, but obviously comes at the cost of group chat and A/V capabilities. That sort of thing. I have been thinking about this the last few days and I think it would be a good idea if we brainstormed some ways this could be elegantly implemented.

ghost commented

2018-11-17 15:06:04 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Or just add another row.

![screenshot from 2018-11-17 16-04-13](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/4354706/48662473-ab933700-ea82-11e8-939f-36f43b1a614d.png) Or just add another row.

ghost commented

2018-11-17 16:26:59 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

It's a nice idea but I think really you should keep it to 3 featured ones that have been audited. The reason for is because because people that have been referred to the page and don't know a lot about the topic will be bombarded with information. The question being "oh my god which one do I pick".

On a side note you could for Ricochet you could put "Anonymous" and "no metadata" as a tag there.

By all means keep wire under "worth mentioning". I also don't see XMPP suddenly getting more popular even with OMEMO. The platform and client fragmentation won't help that. Hopefully Matrix will make it where XMPP didn't.

It's a nice idea but I think really you should keep it to 3 featured ones that have been audited. The reason for is because because people that have been referred to the page and don't know a lot about the topic will be bombarded with information. The question being "oh my god which one do I pick". On a side note you could for Ricochet you could put "Anonymous" and "no metadata" as a tag there. By all means keep wire under "worth mentioning". I also don't see XMPP suddenly getting more popular even with [OMEMO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMEMO). The platform and client fragmentation won't help that. Hopefully Matrix will make it where XMPP didn't.

ghost commented

2018-11-17 18:11:48 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

oh my god which one do I pick

The one that matches your needs. The labels can be used to describe which one is good for what.

> oh my god which one do I pick The one that matches your needs. The labels can be used to describe which one is good for what.

ghost commented

2018-11-17 19:14:51 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

The one that matches your needs. The labels can be used to describe which one is good for what.

My comment was more how a user who doesn't really know much about the topic of privacy might react. This is why in the past I've referred people to privacytools.IO and not prism-break. It's usually triggered from a verbal conversation, sometimes online.

When you're hit with a page like https://prism-break.org/en/all/#instant-messaging for example, it isn't immediately obvious which one you should pick or even why, or what is even suitable for your needs without essentially trying them all or visiting all the pages and reading about all of them. This may beyond some users understand additionally they might not be bothered which causes frustration to those of us trying to refer people to use better non-proprietary and secure options.

I think that it is fair that we handpick a few that we know works well, and have been audited for example Signal, Matrix, Ricochet.

The rest I really believe should be under the "worth mentioning" area. For Tox you could have "no metadata" tag and "peer-to-peer" ie https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/146#issuecomment-433624897 but not a complete tile with description etc. I don't see any reason you can't have software tags next to items under "Worth mentioning".

> The one that matches your needs. The labels can be used to describe which one is good for what. My comment was more how a user who doesn't really know much about the topic of privacy might react. This is why in the past I've referred people to privacytools.IO and not prism-break. It's usually triggered from a verbal conversation, sometimes online. When you're hit with a page like https://prism-break.org/en/all/#instant-messaging for example, it isn't immediately obvious which one you should pick or even why, or what is even suitable for your needs without essentially trying them all or visiting all the pages and reading about all of them. This may beyond some users understand additionally they might not be bothered which causes frustration to those of us trying to refer people to use better non-proprietary and secure options. I think that it is fair that we handpick a few that we know works well, and have been audited for example [Signal](https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1013.pdf), [Matrix](https://matrix.org/blog/2016/11/21/matrixs-olm-end-to-end-encryption-security-assessment-released-and-implemented-cross-platform-on-riot-at-last/), [Ricochet](https://ricochet.im/files/ricochet-ncc-audit-2016-01.pdf). The rest I really believe should be under the "worth mentioning" area. For Tox you could have "no metadata" tag and "peer-to-peer" ie https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/146#issuecomment-433624897 but not a complete tile with description etc. I don't see any reason you can't have software tags next to items under "Worth mentioning".

ghost commented

2018-11-17 20:04:17 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Maybe adding

Pros:

abc
def

Cons:

ghi
jkl

to the bottom of each of the top 3 messengers description would work?

Signal

[...]

Pros:

very easy to use
...
Cons:
requires your phone number

Matrix

[...]

Pros:

very secure
...
Cons:
hard to use

(I'm not making claims about either of these messengers, I'm just suggesting how it could look.)

Maybe adding **Pros:** - abc - def **Cons:** - ghi - jkl to the bottom of each of the top 3 messengers description would work? ### Signal [...] **Pros:** - very easy to use - ... **Cons:** - requires your phone number ### Matrix [...] **Pros:** - very secure - ... **Cons:** - hard to use (I'm not making claims about either of these messengers, I'm just suggesting how it *could* look.)

ghost commented

2018-11-18 04:47:21 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I think this would be a good way of implementing it.

(I'm not making claims about either of these messengers, I'm just suggesting how it could look.)

In regard to matrix being hard to use, I think a better con there would be that metadata needs to exist in order for bridge functionality to exist. Regarding the specifics I think we should open an issue for each client and discuss first. You could use a hyperlink like I have done so above.

Perhaps we could also have the Pro/Con thing as a hoverbox for the 'worth mentioning' clients. I can see that being useful for Tox. It isn't immediately obvious to the person looking that there are cons for that client as well. Pros over being that it does A/V, with no metadata, cons being that it is probably always going to suck on mobile devices because of no push notification (that requires a server), not audited etc.

I think this would be a good way of implementing it. > (I'm not making claims about either of these messengers, I'm just suggesting how it could look.) In regard to matrix being hard to use, I think a better con there would be that metadata needs to exist in order for [bridge functionality to exist](https://matrix.org/~matthew/2016-12-22%20Matrix%20Balancing%20Interop%20and%20Privacy.pdf#page=16). Regarding the specifics I think we should open an issue for each client and discuss first. You could use a hyperlink like I have done so above. Perhaps we could also have the Pro/Con thing as a hoverbox for the 'worth mentioning' clients. I can see that being useful for Tox. It isn't immediately obvious to the person looking that there are cons for that client as well. Pros over being that it does A/V, with no metadata, cons being that it is probably always going to suck on mobile devices because of no push notification (that requires a server), not audited etc.

ghost commented

2019-01-28 09:37:46 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Please see https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/746 I think they are related.