@fishidwardrobe
> is not an argument against what i said
No it absolutely is. You said;
> we have to take the security of their product on trust
The software is published Free Code. It can be audited by anyone, including all the independent app devs who maintain forks. If Element put anything dodgy into the code there's a high chance of getting caught, completely blowing their reputation, including with their *customers*.
(1/2)
@milan @flbr @element @amatecha @matrix @liaizon They certainly did. But unless you are an encryption expert, we have to take the security of their product on trust. And being funded by governments means I, personally, don't trust them. I don't think that's unreasonable, and I think a lot of folks here feel the same.
@fishidwardrobe
> is not an argument against what i said
No it absolutely is. You said;
> we have to take the security of their product on trust
The software is published Free Code. It can be audited by anyone, including all the independent app devs who maintain forks. If Element put anything dodgy into the code there's a high chance of getting caught, completely blowing their reputation, including with their *customers*.
(1/2)
But putting that aside, Matrix is an open protocol. We don't have to use the Element company's software to use Matrix. There are servers and apps implementing Matrix independently of Element, and they are *definitely* checking what goes into the protocol spec, and any security/ privacy implications it might have.
@fishidwardrobe
> two years ago
So? You said it in public and you haven't deleted or edited it, and clearly you still stand by it.
(2/2)
