Remove Wire #1489
No reviewers
Labels
No Label
🔍🤖 Search Engines
approved
dependencies
duplicate
feedback wanted
high priority
I2P
iOS
low priority
OS
Self-contained networks
Social media
stale
streaming
todo
Tor
WIP
wontfix
XMPP
[m]
₿ cryptocurrency
ℹ️ help wanted
↔️ file sharing
⚙️ web extensions
✨ enhancement
❌ software removal
💬 discussion
🤖 Android
🐛 bug
💢 conflicting
📝 correction
🆘 critical
📧 email
🔒 file encryption
📁 file storage
🦊 Firefox
💻 hardware
🌐 hosting
🏠 housekeeping
🔐 password managers
🧰 productivity tools
🔎 research required
🌐 Social News Aggregators
🆕 software suggestion
👥 team chat
🔒 VPN
🌐 website issue
🚫 Windows
👁️ browsers
🖊️ digital notebooks
🗄️ DNS
🗨️ instant messaging (im)
🇦🇶 translations
No Milestone
No Assignees
1 Participants
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: privacyguides/privacytools.io#1489
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "patch-1"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Description
Resolves: #1488
Check List
I have read and understand the contributing guidelines.
[N/A] The project is Free Libre and/or Open Source Software
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.
Deploy preview for privacytools-io ready!
Built with commit
2b09ff82d6
https://deploy-preview-1489--privacytools-io.netlify.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.
I endorse this pull request.
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.
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 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 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
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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:
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?
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).
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>
As nitrohorse said, please remove the image.
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
_includes/sections/teamchat.html
(because it would be left empty and bad looking)Sorry for putting words into your mouth, nitrohorse
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.
This is now the only thing I am not certain about in this PR, but a blog post is coming.