Remove Wire #1489

Merged
xDazld merged 5 commits from patch-1 into master 2019-11-19 16:55:35 +00:00
xDazld commented 2019-11-14 03:09:56 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)

Description

Resolves: #1488

Check List

I'm a first time contributor here and likely did something wrong. Please suggest corrections as needed.

## Description Resolves: #1488 #### Check List <!-- Please add an x in each box below, like so: [x] --> - [x] I have read and understand [the contributing guidelines](https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/blob/master/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md). - [N/A] The project is [Free Libre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software) and/or [Open Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software) Software * Netlify preview for the mainly edited page: <!-- link or Non Applicable? Edit this in afterwards --> https://deploy-preview-1489--privacytools-io.netlify.com/software/real-time-communication/ I'm a first time contributor here and likely did something wrong. Please suggest corrections as needed.
Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-11-14 03:09:56 +00:00
netlify[bot] commented 2019-11-14 03:10:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)

Deploy preview for privacytools-io ready!

Built with commit 2b09ff82d6

https://deploy-preview-1489--privacytools-io.netlify.com

Deploy preview for *privacytools-io* ready! Built with commit 2b09ff82d6b6ff9e4c85865ba8625fe69a76de47 https://deploy-preview-1489--privacytools-io.netlify.com
nitrohorse commented 2019-11-14 04:19:55 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)

In case we do end up delisting Wire, we’ll also want to remove the image and Worth Mentioning section under https://deploy-preview-1489--privacytools-io.netlify.com/software/real-time-communication/#teamchat.

In case we do end up delisting Wire, we’ll also want to remove the image and Worth Mentioning section under https://deploy-preview-1489--privacytools-io.netlify.com/software/real-time-communication/#teamchat.
danarel commented 2019-11-14 04:22:05 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)

I endorse this pull request.

I endorse this pull request.
blacklight447 commented 2019-11-14 06:19:20 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)

Shouldn't we first figuire the rest out? Removing has quite a dramatic impact, and as long as we dont have a clear picture, people will be wondering what happend .
We did the same with the startpage situation, investigate, document, and remove.

Shouldn't we first figuire the rest out? Removing has quite a dramatic impact, and as long as we dont have a clear picture, people will be wondering what happend . We did the same with the startpage situation, investigate, document, and remove.
danarel commented 2019-11-14 06:24:53 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)

I think this article answers almost all of it. Wire isn’t interested in individual privacy. They even removed the word privacy from their slogan.

In the article, their CEO says their plan all along was to expand enterprise sales and offer security to them and will eventually launch a freemium feature for individuals. They even took down references to the free accounts on the website.

https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/13/messaging-app-wire-confirms-8-2m-raise-responds-to-privacy-concerns-after-moving-holding-company-to-the-us/

I think this article answers almost all of it. Wire isn’t interested in individual privacy. They even removed the word privacy from their slogan. In the article, their CEO says their plan all along was to expand enterprise sales and offer security to them and will eventually launch a freemium feature for individuals. They even took down references to the free accounts on the website. https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/13/messaging-app-wire-confirms-8-2m-raise-responds-to-privacy-concerns-after-moving-holding-company-to-the-us/
blacklight447 commented 2019-11-14 06:42:39 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)

I see, that truly is worrying, though i still believe we should put all information on this together to document it, and so we can push out a warning about this today, will you be able to handle this dan?

I see, that truly is worrying, though i still believe we should put all information on this together to document it, and so we can push out a warning about this today, will you be able to handle this dan?
dngray commented 2019-11-14 07:06:11 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)

I will be working on this issue https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/1377 in the coming days so I'll take this into account.

The outcome of this should also take into consideration https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/1437

I will be working on this issue https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/1377 in the coming days so I'll take this into account. The outcome of this should also take into consideration https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/1437
xDazld commented 2019-11-14 12:55:36 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)

The pull doesn't need to be accepted right away. It's just here and ready for if the decision was made to go ahead with removal.
When I get a chance I'll take out the things @nitrohorse mentioned.

The pull doesn't need to be accepted right away. It's just here and ready for if the decision was made to go ahead with removal. When I get a chance I'll take out the things @nitrohorse mentioned.
privacytoolsIO (Migrated from github.com) approved these changes 2019-11-14 13:16:15 +00:00
privacytoolsIO (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-11-14 13:18:48 +00:00
privacytoolsIO commented 2019-11-14 13:20:30 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)

I'm in favor of removing it for now. It's fishy and we need to react fast. Doesn't mean that we have to send out warnings or cause any kind of panic at this stage though.

I'm in favor of removing it for now. It's fishy and we need to react fast. Doesn't mean that we have to send out warnings or cause any kind of panic at this stage though.
dngray (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-11-14 15:03:11 +00:00
dngray (Migrated from github.com) left a comment

Approving. This is one of the reasons why federated services are a good idea. You pick a server with a privacy policy compatible with your interests.

Approving. This is one of the reasons why federated services are a good idea. You pick a server with a privacy policy compatible with **your** interests.
blacklight447 commented 2019-11-14 15:21:32 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)

@BurungHantu1605 removing is more likely to cause panic rather then a small warning sign.

Now i think of it, maybe we should create an "under investigation" status for cases like this. So its not like people have to panic and assume its bad, but have to be cautiones and keep in mind that it may be removed.

@BurungHantu1605 removing is more likely to cause panic rather then a small warning sign. Now i think of it, maybe we should create an "under investigation" status for cases like this. So its not like people have to panic and assume its bad, but have to be cautiones and keep in mind that it may be removed.
dngray commented 2019-11-14 15:41:33 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)

@BurungHantu1605 removing is more likely to cause panic rather then a small warning sign.

I recommend waiting on this as well, approved so just in case we can remove it in a hurry.

This situation has given me the idea to add this point as a disadvantage for centralized systems:

  • Ownership, privacy policy and running of the service can change when a single entity controls it.
> @BurungHantu1605 removing is more likely to cause panic rather then a small warning sign. I recommend waiting on this as well, approved so just in case we can remove it in a hurry. This situation has given me the idea to add this point as a disadvantage for centralized systems: - Ownership, privacy policy and running of the service can change when a single entity controls it.
xDazld commented 2019-11-14 20:14:49 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)

Are we able to specify what exactly are we waiting for? I think it would be best if we can agree on what criteria we still need before the removal is put in place.

Do we want to wait for a specific time period to see what happens? Do we want to see what Wire's next statement will be? Do we want to have someone investigate further into Wire's motives behind all of this?

Are we able to specify what exactly are we waiting for? I think it would be best if we can agree on what criteria we still need before the removal is put in place. Do we want to wait for a specific time period to see what happens? Do we want to see what Wire's next statement will be? Do we want to have someone investigate further into Wire's motives behind all of this?
Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-11-14 20:30:19 +00:00
Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) left a comment

Change requests: see nitrohorse's comment, I require removing the image and worth mentioning.

As they are doing things better than other examples in the avoid section, I disagree with including Wire there, but if @privacytoolsIO/editorial decides otherwise, I am fine with that.

My opinion: I wish I could disagree with delisting Wire, but I feel disappointed with this new policy, I was advocating for them and moved my family there and have ever overlooked the fact that I have been unable to use Wire's Android app for over a month (https://github.com/wireapp/wire-android/issues/2321).

Change requests: see nitrohorse's comment, I require removing the image and worth mentioning. As they are doing things better than other examples in the avoid section, I disagree with including Wire there, but if @privacytoolsIO/editorial decides otherwise, I am fine with that. My opinion: I wish I could disagree with delisting Wire, but I feel disappointed with this new policy, I was advocating for them and moved my family there and have ever overlooked the fact that I have been unable to use Wire's Android app for over a month (https://github.com/wireapp/wire-android/issues/2321).
Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) commented 2019-11-14 20:24:51 +00:00

I am not happy with Wire being listed here as they are still open source.

However a blog post should probably be made like with Startpage. @privacytoolsIO/content ?

I am not happy with Wire being listed here as they are still open source. However a blog post should probably be made like with Startpage. @privacytoolsIO/content ?
@ -42,4 +25,3 @@
<h3>Complete Comparison</h3>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://securechatguide.org/effguide.html">securechatguide.org</a> - Guide to Choosing a Messenger.</li>
Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) commented 2019-11-14 20:25:44 +00:00

As nitrohorse said, please remove the image.

As nitrohorse said, please remove the image.
Mikaela commented 2019-11-14 20:55:35 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)

Sorry, I forgot that the Real Time Communication page has three sections from different files. To clarify, what I and @nitrohorse wish you to do is:

  • git rm assets/img/tools/wire.png
  • Remove the worth mentioning section from _includes/sections/teamchat.html (because it would be left empty and bad looking)

Sorry for putting words into your mouth, nitrohorse

Sorry, I forgot that the Real Time Communication page has three sections from different files. To clarify, what I and @nitrohorse wish you to do is: * [ ] `git rm assets/img/tools/wire.png` * [ ] Remove the worth mentioning section from `_includes/sections/teamchat.html` (because it would be left empty and bad looking) *Sorry for putting words into your mouth, nitrohorse*
xDazld commented 2019-11-14 22:19:57 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)

Removed the unused image and worth mentioning as @nitrohorse suggested. Also got rid of a mention of a Wire security audit I missed.
As for adding Wire to the do not use list, the reasoning behind that was to provide a link back to the issue that caused its removal. It was there to solve the problem of a user wondering why Wire vanished. Also, while Wire is open source, it has a policy problem. People do care about that policy problem, that's why this pull request is here. Open to others thoughts on what should be done on that though.

Removed the unused image and worth mentioning as @nitrohorse suggested. Also got rid of a mention of a Wire security audit I missed. As for adding Wire to the do not use list, the reasoning behind that was to provide a link back to the issue that caused its removal. It was there to solve the problem of a user wondering why Wire vanished. Also, while Wire is open source, it has a policy problem. People do care about that policy problem, that's why this pull request is here. Open to others thoughts on what should be done on that though.
privacytoolsIO (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-11-14 22:27:42 +00:00
dngray (Migrated from github.com) approved these changes 2019-11-15 03:01:35 +00:00
dngray (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-11-15 03:02:24 +00:00
Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-11-15 16:07:56 +00:00
Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) commented 2019-11-15 16:07:53 +00:00

This is now the only thing I am not certain about in this PR, but a blog post is coming.

This is now the only thing I am not certain about in this PR, but a blog post is coming.
nitrohorse (Migrated from github.com) approved these changes 2019-11-16 03:46:26 +00:00
jonah approved these changes 2019-11-19 06:52:55 +00:00
dngray (Migrated from github.com) approved these changes 2019-11-19 07:13:17 +00:00
This repo is archived. You cannot comment on pull requests.
No Milestone
No Assignees
1 Participants
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: privacyguides/privacytools.io#1489
No description provided.