[HN Gopher] Jitsi Meet Abandons Anonimity Promise
___________________________________________________________________
Jitsi Meet Abandons Anonimity Promise
Author : pacija
Score : 68 points
Date : 2023-09-04 15:36 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (reclaimthenet.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (reclaimthenet.org)
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| "Other Site Abandons Anonymity" says website which puts large
| "Sign Up" prompts on first-use and below every article.
|
| Slightly hypocritical reclaimthenet
| hackan wrote:
| [flagged]
| slackfan wrote:
| What's capitalistic about bowing to the social censorship
| required? Sure as hell ain't making their product more
| profitable for the user market. Seems like the market isn't the
| end users but government monopolies which isn't capitalistic at
| all.
| [deleted]
| BizarreByte wrote:
| No, nothing survives pedophiles. Although Jitsi won't admit it
| directly, it has been strongly hinted CSAM is the reason for
| the change.
| hackan wrote:
| CSAM is a great excuse for a lot of things, in particular to
| control free speech. It is a real problem, but this is
| clearly not working.
| prmoustache wrote:
| people keep mixing the service and the software it seems.
| zaggynl wrote:
| ON THE PUBLIC JITSI-MEET DEMO SERVER https://meet.jit.si/!
|
| Selfhost jitsi-meet!
|
| It isn't rocket science:
| https://jitsi.github.io/handbook/docs/devops-guide/devops-gu...
| sebmaynard wrote:
| Even easier with docker/docker-compose
|
| https://jitsi.github.io/handbook/docs/devops-guide/devops-gu...
| reflexe wrote:
| Maybe it is just my mood, but this blog's full screen newsletter
| subscription banner on mobile is much more infuriating than
| whatever Jitsi did (screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/fSEyZ8x)
| yakcyll wrote:
| This was talked about before here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37316959
|
| I assume this move, in essence, is meant to combat spam?
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| what went unsaid but very heavily implied in the Jitsi
| announcement was that it was (allegedly) CSAM and not mere
| spam.
| xulres wrote:
| Stop with the allegedly it was a anonymous service that was
| reachable from onion. There is no question at all that there
| was CSAM shared over it. I don't care about the rest but all
| this "allegedly" shit in regards of CSAM gets on my nerves. I
| actually thought people here either work in bigger corps or
| have experience in running services themselves and would know
| about the real size of the CSAM problem. But I guess not,
| ignorance is bliss.
|
| Also it's only their hosted for profit service. Use the fsf
| instance if you feel violated by a user account.
| https://jitsi.member.fsf.org/
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| I personally think it was likely/almost certainly the case.
| That doesn't change the fact that without sufficient actual
| evidence it remains "allegedly."
| [deleted]
| zozbot234 wrote:
| Well, the announcement talks about clear-cut ToS
| violations. Maybe it was about illegally streamed soccer
| matches - that's a bit of a plague as of late.
| pengaru wrote:
| Not all porn is CSAM... Are we just assuming it's CSAM
| because non-CSAM would be on OnlyFans? Is there not an
| appeal for the anonymity and zero-cost Jitsi offered vs.
| OF-like services, for consenting adults?
|
| I've never used OF but assumed they take a cut. Through
| Jitsi a performer could arrange for payment via crypto,
| protect their identity, and not pay a cut to any middle-
| men beyond the crypto fees. What am I missing?
| Vinnl wrote:
| I mean, it could also be beheadings, revenge porn,
| doxxing, etc. Lots of clear-cut violations that are more
| serious than illegally streamed soccer matches.
|
| But the true answer is probably "all of the above".
| lnxg33k1 wrote:
| Piracy is still the best way/our best chance to get rid
| of soccer and all the nothingness that it involves in
| terms of drama, gossip, etc
| [deleted]
| yieldcrv wrote:
| "allegedly" aside, is this the only way to tackle the CSAM
| problem? I get a whif of a false dilemma here but I'm not
| sure if I have a blindspot
|
| is requiring Oauth from Facebook, Google or Github for
| hosts something meaningful, necessary or the obligation of
| Jitsi Meet to do at all
| [deleted]
| xulres wrote:
| In every thread someone comes with "but is this the only
| way to tackle the problem?" Noone ever even makes a
| suggestion so I guess yes it's the only way.
| [deleted]
| yieldcrv wrote:
| that's mentally negligent.
|
| the only people that have to identify problems _and_
| solutions are founders that are grifting for capital or
| customers. and that's sad.
|
| the rest of rational actors can see a false dilemmas from
| afar without knowing what the third and fourth and fifth
| possibilities are.
|
| in this case its pretty obvious that "privacy for hosts,
| or not via FAANG Oauth and an unaccountable change in the
| terms of service to further distance from privacy" is a
| false dilemma while also not preventing anonymous CSAM
| rooms on their service.
| seanhunter wrote:
| It's not mentally negligent, "is this the only solution?"
| is a weird standard that for some reason gets brought up
| in the specific instance but isn't something we apply to
| other problems.
|
| Is MFA the only solution to the auth problem? No.
|
| Is having a firewall the only way to prevent unauthorized
| traffic on your network? No.
|
| Is docker the only solution to how to package software in
| containers? No
|
| Is git the only DVCS? No.
|
| Is git-flow the only way to manage branching and pull-
| requests? No.
|
| Is Rust/Python/Javascript the only programming language?
| No.
|
| Are relational databases the only way to persist
| important data? No.
|
| etc etc etc...
|
| We _normally_ expect for difficult problems to have a
| variety of solutions with different tradeoffs and in
| particular, for really hard problems involving adaptive
| human adversaries, a lot of time we rely on applying
| multiple levels of "solution" in order to give us
| defense in depth and a chance to really crack a
| particular problem.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| personally I think its weirder how CSAM (or a mere
| _rumor_ of it in this case) gets people to not question
| anything
|
| when without that rumor the criticism of the change would
| be criticism
|
| "is this the only solution" is actually just me being
| diplomatic on a topic people are emotional about, as its
| clearly not the only solution, but even that is met with
| deflection
|
| maybe thats the reason this "weird standard" is only
| noticed on CSAM mitigation discussions, because people
| know they cant be frank to you
| xulres wrote:
| So you are basically saying my way or the highway without
| even offering a option at all. So your "diplomatic" is
| just another way of saying "I don't give a shit and
| please stfu". Why would you inject yourself in a
| discussion if you don't really want to participate?
| Yikes.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| That's not my position at all
|
| Its "is this the least worst solution, or the most best,
| and why?"
|
| if you cant engage you have the same choice
| xulres wrote:
| [flagged]
| bradleyjg wrote:
| It's only a false dilemma if there's a third, etc.
| possibility. You can't just assume that every problem has
| a magical happy solution that requires no tradeoffs.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| I agree, so here are several
|
| 3. the same signup requirements for the participants
| instead of just the host
|
| 4. phone number verification for the host and
| participants
|
| 5. a credit card for the host and participants
|
| 6. some kind of deposit for the host and participants
|
| 7. discriminating against Tor users
|
| 8. including Apple ID in the list of auth services
|
| 9. it actually not being Jitsi Meet's obligation at all
| and authorities continue to prosecute the criminal action
| of the participants by doing actual investigations
|
| 10. ...
| tqi wrote:
| How is 3-8 a better solution, rather than merely
| different?
|
| It seems like your actual opinion is #9, but that's not
| actually a solution they can implement.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Its just a random assortment of possibilities to
| demonstrate that Jitsi's is a false dilemma
|
| people pretending that the only people that can question
| one solution must also be the person to have the other
| solution
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| remirk wrote:
| I personally have no issue with having to log-in to use the
| hosted Jitsi and have it store that I created a room. That's a
| small price to pay for the longevity of the service.
|
| If logging in is an issue, you're still able to selfhost Jitsi
| just fine.
|
| Edit: this article feels like blogspam to me.
| https://jitsi.org/blog/authentication-on-meet-jit-si/ is the
| source the article refers to.
| throw_pm23 wrote:
| What about having to log in with a Google/Facebook/MS account
| as opposed to a Jitsi account?
| [deleted]
| Terretta wrote:
| Most such tools can no longer afford their stance once adoption
| passes a threshold.
|
| Why that might be is often revealed on techdirt:
|
| - https://www.techdirt.com/edition/freespeech/
|
| For other reasons, see also:
|
| - https://mattfrisbie.substack.com/p/the-ugly-business-of-mone...
|
| - https://github.com/extesy/hoverzoom/discussions/670
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| Making a separate account on Jitsi would have been fine, but they
| only allow use of existing centralized account systems from
| github (microsoft), facebook, or google.
|
| That's Not Good(tm).
|
| Good thing Self-hosting still works I guess. Will have to set it
| up.
| redserk wrote:
| Managing a public authentication service requires ongoing
| maintenance and monitoring costs. While they could pay a third
| party to manage it for them, this is a reasonable decision for
| them to keep costs low.
|
| It doesn't sound like Jitsi is sending Facebook and Microsoft
| transcriptions of your meetings so I don't see why this is a
| big concern for a free service.
| layer8 wrote:
| It requires you to have a Microsoft/Facebook/Google account
| in the first place.
| itake wrote:
| Self hosting isn't exactly anonymous either.
| rebeccaskinner wrote:
| Anonymity is in the eyes of the beholder. In this case, self-
| hosting might make your interactions "anonymous" in the eyes
| of Google, Microsoft, or Meta, even if it doesn't make you
| anonymous to whatever platform you use to host the software.
| m-p-3 wrote:
| That's what happen when awful people abuse nice things.
|
| Those bad actors and privacy-conscious people (both entirely
| distinct group, just in case it looks like I'm putting those two
| in the same category..) can still self-host their own Jitsi Meet
| server if they want to.
| snowstormsun wrote:
| Isn't webrtc leaking the IPs of call participants anyways,
| regardless of which service?
| Sean-Der wrote:
| If you are going through Jitsi (a SFU) all your media goes
| through them.
|
| If you are doing P2P then you will be able to get the remote's
| IP address.
| moomin wrote:
| Could a mod fix the spelling, please?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-04 23:01 UTC)