Modern XMPP project discussion - 2022-01-20

Hi, how can I implement view once functionality with XMPP?

Azeez: this is not really a protocol thing

To be honest it's not really a computing thing, there is no 100% secure/correct way to implement "view once"

Snapchat for example has many ways to bypass their functionality

And all the attempted restrictions are implemented in the app. For example, display the message, then delete it... simple. Android had an API for apps to disable screenshots, I assume iOS has similar. On desktop... good luck.

no, not good luck

the worst of luck, actually

we don't need no more DRM

^ this

But all these are app things, not protocol things. The most you'll potentially want from the protocol is a way to indicate that this "view once" functionality should be enabled for a given message, there's no standard for that (nor much interest in one AFAIK) but it's trivial to add it yourself

(regarding the screenshot or screencast stuff… if both parties consent to the removal of a message from the client after reading, that's ok; but don't introduce APIs to prohibit desktop-wide things, that's just dangerous)

There's probably interest in it, given how many proprietary apps use XMPP, just that they probably don't care submitting it

I seem to recall it was even rejected once

heh

message expiry or so?

I don't know about this one. I know about ephemeral messages but I guess (hope?) that's not what you're talking about

That's the one I think of

It's not the same goals to me :x

It's about the same signaling for sure

What's the difference?

The goal is to "prevent" cops to access the message in the device, not the user. (Note the quotes)

FDE?

That's one more thing sure

(FDE is close to FDO in French, which means Force De l'Ordre, i.e., cops :p)

pep., but that's still a product, not a protocol, thing

Anyway it's definitely not bulletproof, but it didn't really hurt I think. It's not the same as DRM to me in goals. In the end surely the user also didn't have access to the message anymore, but that's a strong they can change themselves (before the expiry of the given message of course), which a view once app probably wouldn't allow?

jonas’: agreed. Wiring is about the same

Well both parties need to agree on something so yes there is protocol

Typically Signal allows changing the delay by all parties in the chat.

That's a thing* they can change themselves

Completion.

fwiw you have me doubt now about the thing being DRM. I still think I want to disagree

Of course, DRM is bad

But Signal is based on SGX 😄

pep., as soon as it starts preventing screenshots or so, it is exactly what DRM software (think netflix) wants.

MattJ, :(

Yeah that's definitely not what I have in mind for the ephemeral thing

Just messages getting out of logs at some agreed delay ✏

C now has local options for preventing screenshots and deleting messages after a certain amount of time

Seems you just want signaling for this

I don't want to prevent screenshots :x

Do you want to prevent someone permanently storing history?

I want to change defaults really

defaults for what?

I don't want defaults to be "store everything forever"

I want them to be exactly that

I'd be furious if I found out after a year that poezio rotated logs away

You'll be able to set that if you want

but store everything forever has been the default forever, changing it will break expectations badly.

If it's provided with a UI..

"first start" UI type of thing would work

fork, call it privacyezio, store logs on encrypted tmpfs

"hey you can set messages to disappear in xxx" "your contact has set messages to disappear in xxx" "no way, I don't want that" "your contact has set messages not to disappear"

pep.: so product not protocol then. Slight tweak to C is all that's needed.

MattJ: there is protocol in what I just sent

is modernxmpp about protocol or product? :)

Both clients need to be aware of the value set by one user

`<{please-delete-my-messages}after t=xs:integer/>` 🤷️

That

put it into presence?

But as we all know, you can't truly know that it will be enforced

Zash: sure sure

I think it doesn't matter

jonas’, itym `<{disco#info}feature var='I promise I will respect your retention policy'/>`

Most people won't edit their client and that's fine by me

s/edit/install something other than your Conversations fork/

Whatever

Tho with mutual feature advertising, you could in theory at least say "this contact might keep your messages longer than expected, don't tell them your secrets"

EXCEPT that's dead, thanks to MAM and carbons and offline messages 🙁

Can't have nice things

The point is not to have messages on disk anymore

I'm not personally set on dis/allowing mam if that's set, but that's a question to be asked for sure

do we need activistxmpp@?

Don't we have it already :)

many things you describe sound terrible for the average user I know.

do we?

It doesn't for me

you're an outlier in my sample set.

hence, the word average :)

or did you mean mean user?

I also have "average" users around me

Zash, I even mean median user

don't be mean

😛

:P

Who apart from nerds go check their 6-months old logs anyway.. most users don't even know they still have them

not 6 months, but a few years I have seen to happen

my wife is still very sad about the loss of her ICQ logs from a decade ago on a broken disk drive

Well if she has expectations then she could just not opt-in (or opt-out depending on the client)

are we back to: 09:27:17 jonas’> "first start" UI type of thing would work

It could be added to a wizard but that's not how I'm seeing it

Also presence, I'm not sure. Values can be different per chat ✏

pep., how else?

there's expectations [where you know that they might not be fulfilled] and expectations [where they seem so normal to you that you don't even consider them to not be fulfilled]

Not sure I understand

Schrödingers logs. People want them available everywhere but stored nowhere.

pep., I expect poezio to store logs forever, but the thought that it might not do that by default would not have crossed my mind when I set it up.

so I would never have searched for an "archive everything forever" switch

and I would be very angry when I needed to look at something weeks/months/years later

poezio logs?

(using poezio as a random exampe here; same holds for any other client)

As someone who rotates between clients, those logs, if they exist, are going to be useless and full of holes

jonas’: I wouldn't start with a value set fwiw. You'd be free to set it, or to unset it if a contact sets it in a chat

And you'd be advertised that it is being set of course

The feature would be there and available

I always think the biggest hurdle when trying to add a feature is nerds, really :x

(me included for sure)

pep., you talked about changing defaults earlier ✏

that's what I was referring to

I don't care about additional non-default features, go ahead

That would come in its time, in some circles

If enough people use that

Still I would like conversations to not default to "never" delete logs, even setting it to 6 months would be nice..