-
moparisthebest
I haven't read exactly but last I had heard that was out
-
Williams W
?
-
Williams W
hello
-
Williams W
?
-
Williams W
?
-
flow
Williams W, hi
-
Williams W
?
-
pep.
GDPR thing in 10min
-
winfried
(y)
-
Ge0rG
winfried: do you happen to be using an old Gajim version?
-
jonasw
.
-
winfried
Ge0rG: nope, Psi+
-
jonasw
can we discuss the time frame for this meeting real quick?
-
winfried
because of my (y)
-
jonasw
I allocated an hour, would be happy with less too, more would be an issue.
-
Ge0rG
yeah, we should attemt to get through this quickly, I'm 2hr over the time budget already.
-
winfried
good, I will aim for a close at 13:15 at max
-
winfried
(CEST)
-
Williams W
```
-
Williams W
我想知道一个问题,tor加密下这样的对话被破解的几率有没有%0.1?
-
winfried
pep.: are you there?
-
jonasw
.
-
pep.
!
-
winfried
nice aditions from peter btw
-
jonasw
yeah
-
winfried
I will try to setup a wiki page today
-
winfried
(beside my other work)
-
pep.
I'll continue with the minutes
-
jonasw
pep., will you be taking minutes again? :)
-
jonasw
thanks :)
-
winfried
great!
-
winfried
think it is best to discuss federation right away now
-
jonasw
ok
-
pep.
Q1) 1. What consequences does the GDPR has for the Jabber network? 2. .. Jabber server operators? 3. .. what can/should do the XSF with that? Q2) What consequences does the GDPR has for the XSF running Jabber server? Q3) What consequences does the GDPR has for the work processes of the XSF itself (membership, voting, wiki etc)?
-
Ge0rG
I think we didn't cover d-f of Q1.1 yet?
-
pep.
d-f?
-
Ge0rG
pep.: from yesterday's list of aspects
-
Kev
I'd suggest (and I don't really want to get involved in this) that Q2 and Q3 are much more urgently important for the XSF than Q1.
-
pep.
Both of them depend on Q1
-
pep.
Well, Q2 at lesat✎ -
winfried
yep
-
pep.
Well, Q2 at least ✏
-
winfried
Ge0rG: what is on your list about Q1.1?
-
Ge0rG
a is it in the GDPR jurisdiction, what data is b what data is processed c what processing is done d what ground does the processing have e possible consequences
-
Ge0rG
Maybe there was no f.
-
pep.
no f
-
jonasw
no f
-
winfried
we didn't fully cover grounds for c2s, true
-
Ge0rG
I'd like to cover the grounds before moving on with the other Qs
-
winfried
Ge0rG: good
-
Ge0rG
the potential consequences are vague at best anyway.
-
Ge0rG
vaguely scary.
-
winfried
Ge0rG: Yes, it is the GDPR ;-)
-
Ge0rG
I'd argue that if the user sends content via our server, they are giving implicit consent for us to process it.
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, I’m so sure this is false.
-
jonasw
the user could expect e.g. the server to forward it, but not to store it in MAM
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: I'd argue that either Art 6 §1 or §2 apply.
-
jonasw
or store it for less time
-
Ge0rG
no, way. §1 a or b.
-
jonasw
consent needs to be explicit
-
jonasw
(b) may very well apply
-
winfried
I would vote for 6.1b
-
jonasw
but that is overridden by 9.1
-
jonasw
and after Peters comments I think that 9.1 very much applies to messages.
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: I'm not sure about that.
-
Ge0rG
maybe this is actually something to ask a lawyer about
-
jonasw
okay, so maybe let’s write that down as something somebody should definitely consult a lawyer on.
-
jonasw
ha
-
pep.
hmm, I don't see how 9.1 fits in that. I'll add a TODO
-
Ge0rG
LQ1: does 9.1 automatically apply to all (not e2ee encrypted) user-sent content, or only if we are analyzing it for profiling/other purposes?
-
jonasw
pep., in my mind, most of the GDPR handles general personal data, and 9.1 adds overrides for a certain type of personal data and prohibits all use except that outlined in 9.2
-
winfried
look at 9.2e...
-
jonasw
winfried, I’d argue that sending a message to another user is "not making it public"✎ -
winfried
hmmm, but the xmpp server(operator) is third party...
-
jonasw
winfried, I’d argue that sending a message to another user is not "making it public" ✏
-
winfried
pep., can you note this as subject for further consulting?
-
pep.
hmm, let me see if I get this
-
pep.
what is "this" in your sentence
-
jonasw
LQ1?
-
pep.
Ah, yes it's aded already✎ -
pep.
Ah, yes it's added already ✏
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: lawyer-question
-
pep.
This is for Q1.1.a then?
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, I am aware.
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, I made a suggestion for what winfried might be talking about :)
-
pep.
:)
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: ah, that wasn't clear to me. sorry
-
pep.
Next?
-
winfried
Ok: art 6.1 is explicit permission, art 6.2 is implicit permission. Article 9.1 overrides article 6 and sets its grounds in article 9.2. So if the messages are of the categories in 9.1, then we must go for explicit permission from 9.2a, otherwise we can do 6.2
-
Ge0rG
we need to cover d) for all data types
-
winfried
Ge0rG: exact
-
Ge0rG
server logs are the easiest thing.
-
Ge0rG
we have those under R49
-
winfried
so the question for a lawyer is: are message bodies 9.1 or not?
-
jonasw
winfried, yes.
-
winfried
Ge0rG: yes, agree with logs
-
Ge0rG
if we consider the usage of an XMPP server as a contract between the user and the server operator = controller, 6.1b should apply to most things
-
jonasw
... except that it should be clearly stated what happens, right?
-
Ge0rG
credentials are required, IP addresses might be argued under R49, timestamps / presence timestamps are complicated.
-
jonasw
presence timestamps shouldn’t be 9.1 at least
-
Ge0rG
presence timestamps are probably covered by user's consent when they accept a subscription
-
jonasw
I have the feeling you’re lax with consent.
-
jonasw
maybe it’s just me, but I think consent can’t be established without the user being informed. so unless we inform the user actively what "add a contact" means regarding metadata, we can’t talk about consent here.
-
pep.
I also feel that needs to be specified in EULA of some sort
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: > any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject's wishes by which he or she, by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her
-
pep.
Ge0rG, that means they understand the protocol though, right?
-
jonasw
> informed
-
Ge0rG
So XMPP clients need to show a warning in the add-contact dialog, that metadata will be published to their new contact?
-
jonasw
possibly
-
winfried
Isn't that for permission according to 6.1?
-
pep.
I would say this needs to be specified when signing in for an account instead?
-
jonasw
pep., that would work too
-
jonasw
probably better
-
jonasw
because this takes the load off clients
-
pep.
yes
-
jonasw
(aside from that they need to support the EULA XEPρ✎ -
jonasw
(aside from that they need to support the EULA XEP) ✏
-
pep.
yes, that still needs figuring out
-
winfried
I think 13.1 applies here
-
Ge0rG
winfried: is 13.1 in addition to asking for consent?
-
Ge0rG
or is it possible to have a published data collection policy and assume implicit consent from users?
-
jonasw
13.1 feels weird
-
winfried
the last
-
pep.
Ge0rG, [x] I have read the conditions and agree
-
jonasw
I think i need an epub of that thing and read it on the trains
-
winfried
btw: all of 13 is applicable
-
winfried
13.4 is also interesting ;-)
-
jonasw
winfried, right
-
pep.
So that means EULA should do
-
jonasw
I think sot oo
-
winfried
IF we can do it under 6.2
-
Ge0rG
I'd argue that we don't need explicit consent for 6.2, and if we ask for explicit consent, we can tell the user not to upload 9.1 relevant data ;)
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, "so, hey, we’ve got an IM system here. but don’t use it for private communications."
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: yes
-
jonasw
great…
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: this is clearly legalese blame shifting.
-
pep.
Ge0rG, I feel 9.1 applies only if we do more than storage on the data, but yeah that's LQ1, we'll see
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, but if we ask for consent, why not ask for consent for 9.1 data, too?
-
jonasw
pep., storage IS processing
-
pep.
I know
-
winfried
I would say: if we go for consent, we should go for consent as in 9.2, so 9.1 is covered
-
pep.
That's why I specified
-
jonasw
winfried, +1
-
pep.
Ah, hmm
-
pep.
Ok so 9.1 is meh, and we should probably cover ourselves, ask for consent as well
-
jonasw
yes
-
jonasw
but also the risk things Peter mentioned
-
pep.
let me read that, one sec
-
jonasw
specifically: > It could be argued that storing very sensitive personal information, albeit for a short time, unencrypted, visible to anyone with access to the backend server (and perhaps more), does not constitute proportional data protection measure, knowing how sensitive the information can be in some cases. It could therefore also be argued, that the processing “reveals” this information to unauthorized persons, by the way it is implemented. It could therefore be argued, that such processing is contrary to what is required by article 9.
-
jonasw
his suggestions boil down to exactly what Ge0rG said
-
winfried
jonasw: yes, but at how many servers is it easy for the operator to read MAM archives or view their rosters and bookmarks?
-
jonasw
winfried, ssh myserver; cat /var/log/prosody/archive/**/*✎ -
jonasw
winfried, ssh myserver; cat /var/lib/prosody/archive/**/* ✏
-
Kev
winfried: All, I'd assume.
-
jonasw
similarly for bookmarks and roster
-
jonasw
it’s trivial
-
pep.
Also, in any case, the hosting provider will have access to the data
-
jonasw
yes, but that surely is covered somehow.
-
jonasw
probably something about "processor"
-
Ge0rG
We need to do encryption!11
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, yes, that seems to be the safest course of action
-
winfried
jonasw: yes, controller / processor thing
-
jonasw
e2ee everywhere
-
pep.
Ge0rG, even with full-drive encryption, as long as the provider has access to the virtualization software..
-
jonasw
pep., yes.
-
winfried
You can do technical protection and legal protection
-
Ge0rG
pep.: yes, but the checkmark is crossed.
-
pep.
hmm, I want to believe you
-
Ge0rG
Regulatory Compliance is a complicated thing.
-
jonasw
i wanna burn something now
-
winfried
jonasw: my 320p bible on the GDPR?
-
Ge0rG
okay, we are not moving forward.
-
pep.
Ok so, where are we for d) ?
-
pep.
With this big passage about 9.1 and consent
-
winfried
we have LQ1
-
Ge0rG
pep.: somewhere between 6.1a, 6.1b and 9.2
-
winfried
and the question of privacy by design of storage at the server
-
Ge0rG
I'll ask my local GDPR expert as well, and maybe Peter can shed some light as well
-
Ge0rG
winfried: that's a technical question though.
-
pep.
Ge0rG, 9.2a specifically?
-
Ge0rG
pep.: "explicit consent"
-
pep.
yes
-
winfried
Ge0rG: but it may be a consequence that technical measure need to be taken :-(
-
jonasw
I’m pretty sure that we’ll need to take technical measures.
-
Ge0rG
we need to take technical measures anyway.
-
Ge0rG
even for 6.1a/b
-
winfried
Ge0rG: depending on the risk assesment, but looking at ubbers practices, yes...
-
Ge0rG
winfried: the exact amount of technical measures is subject to discussion.
-
winfried
Ge0rG: yes
-
Ge0rG
winfried: I think we can't cover that here.
-
Ge0rG
So I suggest we skip over "consequences" and follow to the next questions
-
Ge0rG
Or maybe we look at federation now
-
winfried
Ge0rG: not here, not now.
-
winfried
Ge0rG: we have got 20 minutes left, and need some time for discussing next steps/next appointments
-
winfried
so, lets say 10 minutes federation?
-
Ge0rG
winfried: +1
-
Ge0rG
we need to differentiate whether the other server is under GDPR as well or not.
-
winfried
Ge0rG: yes and wether the server is making secondary use of the data or not
-
pep.
I'm sure it is, but how
-
Ge0rG
By sending a message to somebody, a user clearly wants us to deliver that message to somebody.
-
jonasw
I somehow managed to kill my poezio
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, aren’t all servers under GPDR potentially?
-
pep.
jonasw, I'm sure I can do that blindfolded
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, because they might receive data from entities from the EU
-
jonasw
9.1 data even (if messages fall in that category)
-
Ge0rG
So when we are the sending server, we just follow what the user asked for and we don't need to ensure the receiving server is GDPR compliant.
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: they can block federation with the EU ;)
-
Ge0rG
my point is: our user gave us that message with the explicit request to deliver it to some other entity.
-
Ge0rG
that's what we do (plus local archive storage), and that's where our responsibility ends
-
pep.
Ge0rG, delivery is a thing, processing on the other side is another. Maybe we should look into transfer regulations?
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, but does the user also consent to have their message stored by the other entity?
-
winfried
I think the line of reasoning is:
-
winfried
- transfer to an other controller is one possible processings to
-
winfried
- it can be covered by the same concent as the other processings (LQ1)
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: I think that the receiving user giving consent is sufficient.
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, I’d like to have that settled properly, though
-
winfried
- EXCEPT when the other server is making secondary use of the data (then at least 6.2 can't apply anymore)
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: the sender indicated that they want the message delivered
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, given that sharing phone contact info wiht WA is illegal in DE, I imagine that things might be worse with 9.1 data being stored without "proportional means of protection"
-
winfried
jonasw: yes, that is the other issue: jurisdiction
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, in the WA case, the victim gave their phone number to the offender, which forwarded it to WA.
-
jonasw
I think this is a very similar case.
-
jonasw
but with more sensitive data
-
jonasw
but IANAL
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: I don't think it's the same.
-
jonasw
why not?
-
pep.
I think we need LQ2 here
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: in this case, the victim sends the content to the offender via the evil server.
-
Ge0rG
I wonder how SMS/MMS processing is legally protected
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, I had the same thought.
-
jonasw
but probably that’s not an issue because they don’t store data for that long
-
jonasw
only as long as needed to deliver
-
winfried
Ge0rG:SMS/MMS seperate telecom laws
-
jonasw
which is reasonable or something
-
pep.
jonasw, sure but then processing is done on the other side
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, email would be more interesting
-
Ge0rG
winfried: how are we different from them? ;)
-
Ge0rG
okay, I don't want to be required to do LE
-
pep.
I agree with Ge0rG it's pretty similar
-
Ge0rG
email is surely very similar, but I can't find any info on email GDPR short of email marketing
-
pep.
Can we try and ask big providers see how they deal with it
-
jonasw
could probably read googles new privacy policy?
-
pep.
Anybody knows one somewhat open to questions/collaboration?
-
pep.
Right
-
winfried
I feel we need to structure this part of the discussen better next time... but don't know how yet
-
pep.
Basically lots of thing here will rely on user consent
-
pep.
But to what extent can we use it we don't seem to agree
-
pep.
Or who needs to ask for it
-
winfried
but LQ2 may be: can (implicit) consent also apply to transfer to other controller by addres
-
winfried
(needs a bit better formulation)
-
Ge0rG
I think that we can apply 6.1f ("processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party") for federation
-
pep.
winfried, what do you mean with "by address"?
-
Ge0rG
the third party is the remote user, and their interest is to be able to communicate
-
edhelas
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/27/open_source_takes_on_facebook/
-
Ge0rG
that should cover storage and delivery, but not profiling
-
winfried
when using @other.domain (xmpp & e-mail)
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, maybe chapter 5 applies?
-
winfried
Ge0rG: no, I think that article is meant for other cases
-
jonasw
in the end, the other service is a "third party"
-
winfried
Chapter 5 applies, and that is also ..... lets say, interesting
-
pep.
Where is chapter 5 again?
-
pep.
Ah
-
pep.
got it
-
winfried
art 44-50
-
jonasw
pep., you might want to bookmark this: https://gdpr-info.eu
-
pep.
Yes I think that falls under this
-
pep.
jonasw, yeah I have it opened
-
pep.
So I propose we all study chapter 5 for next time? :P
-
pep.
And we can sum up here
-
pep.
5min to go
-
winfried
pep.: +1 ;-)
-
jonasw
from a quick glimpse, it’s not directly applicable to federation between two entities within GDPR jurisdiction
-
jonasw
but yeah
-
winfried
jonasw: yes, but federation is not limited to GDPR jurisdiction....
-
jonasw
so for next, I won’t be available until thursday next week (5th of April) aside from best-effort
-
pep.
Date of next?
-
jonasw
I suggest that we select a few dates from that thursday to the following monday and post them to the list
-
jonasw
maybe Peter can join at one of them
-
jonasw
does anyone know his timezone?
-
winfried
jonasw: +1
-
Ge0rG
https://www.gdpreu.org/the-regulation/key-concepts/legitimate-interest/ is interesting here, scroll down to "Recital 47"
-
pep.
jonasw, no idea about his tz
-
pep.
jonasw, let's say date of next: 5th April, 12:15CEST, and also ask on the ML
-
jonasw
I can’t make that specific time on that thursday
-
jonasw
at least I can’t guarantee that
-
jonasw
13:00CEST would probably work
-
pep.
works for me
-
jonasw
but if we assume that peter is more US based, later might be better
-
jonasw
but yeah
-
jonasw
probably best to post that as a suggestion to the list and ask for suggestions if anyone wants to join
-
pep.
I would say decide of a date now, that we can move if we all agree. In the meantime we have a date.
-
winfried
on the 5th I have a meeting from 12:15 to 13:15 with appr. 1,5 hour offline time before and after
-
pep.
is Apr. 6th ok then?
-
jonasw
I can probably make 13:15 on apr. 6th
-
winfried
jonasw: #meetoo
-
pep.
Ok for me
-
jonasw
danger
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, ^
-
Ge0rG
I have no other appointments on 5th/6th, so whatever works
-
pep.
Ok, Apr. 6th 13:15CEST
-
pep.
*bang*
-
jonasw
\o/
-
jonasw
saved
-
winfried
thanks again guys!
-
jonasw
I wonder how this plays with the GDPR:
-
jonasw
https://www.csoonline.com/article/3264658/privacy/microsoft-to-ban-offensive-language-from-skype-xbox-office-and-other-services.html
-
pep.
jonasw, "EDIT: Except for EU citizen :-°"
-
jonasw
hah
-
pep.
jonasw, what article was peter referring to again? I cna't seem to find it ("proportional means of protection")
-
pep.
Ah, he says article 9, and "revealing"
-
pep.
hmm, ok that's why LQ1 then.
-
pep.
That doesn't explain the part of our discussion about encryption
-
Ge0rG
pep.: encryption is one of the mechanisms mandated to protect user data
-
pep.
I guess that's art 35
-
pep.
https://mastodon.social/@Gargron/99730137003463631 they don't seem worried
-
pep.
Anybody what goes into that audit log? http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2018/01/31/social-network/
-
pep.
(grep GDPR)
-
moparisthebest
I wonder how far a non-EU citizen/service is required to go to ensure non-EU people use their service?
-
moparisthebest
is the GDPR only enforceable if an EU citizen sues you?
-
jonasw
moparisthebest, I wish I knew at least that
-
pep.
anybody knows*
-
moparisthebest
if so, then everyone can just put up notices like "EU citizens are forbidden from using this service"
-
moparisthebest
because they wouldn't have standing to sue you about GDPR stuff in court, because they violated your terms?
-
moparisthebest
at least, I think
-
jonasw
I have no idea
-
pep.
I have a feeling I should prepend IANAL to any comment I make during our sessions
-
jonasw
pep., easy. /nick pep.> IANAL:
-
pep.
:D
-
moparisthebest
yea until we get a single lawyer in here ever, maybe a server plugin should do it automatically?
-
pep.
jonasw, will do next time
-
jonasw
aww
-
jonasw
the MUC won’t let you
-
jonasw
moparisthebest, yeah, no
-
pep.
pff
-
jonasw
that might be a solution for you USians
-
jonasw
for certain definitions of "solution"
-
jonasw
or, wait, you aren’t talking about the "no EU citizens" thing anymore?
-
Ge0rG
moparisthebest: I think it's about targeting. If you have a european domain, support languages spoken here, etc.
-
moparisthebest
I mean't a server plugin should prepend IANAL to what everyone says :)
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, "support languages spoken here". english?
-
moparisthebest
what languages *aren't* spoken in EU ?
-
moparisthebest
I feel like that'd be the shorter list
-
Ge0rG
:P
-
pep.
:D
-
pep.
You could state "Here we speak only en_US"
-
moparisthebest
or maybe you limit the character set to ASCII
-
moparisthebest
that would de-facto ban most of the EU
-
Ge0rG
moparisthebest: switch to IBM EBCDIC
-
jonasw
to ban the whole world?
-
Ge0rG
jonasw: there is no world beyond the US of A
-
jonasw
I forogt
-
Ge0rG
I, for one, am proud to be an EU citizen, and to finally have legal remediation against Silicon Valley sucking up and reselling all my private data.
-
moparisthebest
except turns out it's the same kind of legal protection you had before
-
moparisthebest
that is, to just not use the services
-
Ge0rG
moparisthebest: I'm not using Facebook. I'm not using WhatsApp. And still they have data about me.
-
jonasw
Ge0rG, +1
-
moparisthebest
not data you didn't share somehow, presumably
-
jonasw
moparisthebest, but did I share it intentionally?
-
moparisthebest
it's the #1 rule of the internet, put it on the internet, it's there forever
-
jonasw
moparisthebest, I didn’t put my phone number on the internet.
-
jonasw
yet, whatsapp has it most likely
-
moparisthebest
no laws are going to change that
-
Ge0rG
moparisthebest: oh yes, our laws will change that.
-
moparisthebest
yea the law changes things, now you can't use open federated services
-
moparisthebest
good work
-
Ge0rG
moparisthebest: but it depends on what you mean with "put it on the internet" - make it public? use some internet service? contact your friends?
-
Ge0rG
related: https://twitter.com/iamdylancurran/status/977559925680467968
-
Ge0rG
BTW, that the BigCorps are required to provide all the data they store about you is also based on EU regulations
-
pep.
Ok so I have https://cryptpad.fr/code/#/1/edit/eitMC7lM6yOU4kFtNf1Nag/gvYO8K5YdRtKg-b7hNLd7mEz/ Ge0rG jonasw winfried, can you have a quick look
-
jonasw
f*ck!
-
jonasw
I hate that noscript b ug
-
jonasw
pfew, I was in luck. but still
-
jonasw
pep., looks good to me
-
pep.
Most of what we talked about today goes into Q1.1d
-
pep.
There's this "Server logs: r49" line that's kind of sitting alone there, the rest is about consent :P
-
winfried
pep.: nice!
-
pep.
jonasw, also I'd be inclined to say 9.1 only applies to "processing revealing [such information]", as peter suggests? But IANAL
-
jonasw
pep., peter argues that processing which stores the data in plaintext may reveal it to operators
-
pep.
Ah, in that sense
-
jonasw
also, I think the recital is clear that the *data* reveals the information, not the processing
-
pep.
Well, so full-disk encryption is besides the point right?
-
jonasw
the legal text is ambiguous IMO
-
jonasw
in both translations oddly enough
-
jonasw
(it could be either the processing or the data which reveals info, in both en and de)
-
pep.
Because operators will most likely always have access to this information, except in the e2ee case
-
jonasw
pep., exactly.
-
pep.
Even in the e2ee case really, it's still possible, as not many people actually checks
-
pep.
That would be making significant effort though, for the operator, and could be caught as well
-
jonasw
that would require an additional action you normally wouldn’t do though
-
pep.
Security goes as far as one is wiling to apply it (and even then..)
-
pep.
So I'm tempted to remove the full-disk encryption part in the minutes, and add a bit about e2ee
-
pep.
(Since it was my misunderstanding)
-
Ge0rG
pep.: "encryption" is just a control you "need" to checkmark.
-
jonasw
I think tehre was talk about both
-
pep.
Ge0rG, what encryption, where
-
pep.
jonasw, yeah, right
-
Ge0rG
pep.: a secure service will deploy a combination of disk encryption, stream encryption, user data encryption and e2ee
-
jonasw
pep., in line 64, it was definitely about FDE
-
jonasw
pep., maybe add a note about "ubiquitous E2EE would save us from 9.1"
-
pep.
I wish
-
pep.
Ge0rG, right
-
pep.
jonasw, here, done
-
jonasw
thanks
-
pep.
Ok, sending that
-
jonasw
thank you for that already :)
-
pep.
Wow, the mails take quite some time to arrive
-
Kev
It takes a while for all the racial profiling the server needs to do before sending them out.
-
pep.
I see
-
pep.
Makes sense
-
moparisthebest
is there a reason the members mailing list is not linked from here: https://xmpp.org/community/mailing-lists.html
-
jonasw
moparisthebest, possibly because it’s only for members
-
moparisthebest
I was trying to give a link to the GDPR discussion to someone and had to manually construct it
-
jonasw
I don’t think you can subcsribe as non-member.
-
moparisthebest
jonasw, if that's true it's incorrectly configured to be public https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/2018-March/thread.html
-
pep.
https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo
-
jonasw
moparisthebest, maybe
-
moparisthebest
(I clicked on 'standards' then changed 'standards' in the url to 'members')
-
jonasw
iteam? (cc @ Kev, intosi) ^
-
pep.
it's listed here
-
moparisthebest
I personally don't see a reason for it to be private, I'd just like to see it listed next to the rest :)
-
Kev
What's the problem here? The list should be invite-only, public archives.
-
jonasw
Kev, then there’s no problem :)
-
moparisthebest
except it's not listed on https://xmpp.org/community/mailing-lists.html
-
jonasw
Kev, except htat maybe it should be moderated-by-default and free to subscribe, if the archives are public anyways.
-
Kev
I see no benefit to that.
-
jonasw
Kev, ease of use
-
Kev
It's easy to use for members, and that's all that matters here.
-
Ge0rG
I'm not even sure what the ML is *for*
-
jonasw
Kev, arguably, that discussion is interesting for non-members too.
-
jonasw
but I don’t think that standards@ would be the right venue
-
jonasw
what would be the most appropriate list then?
-
Ge0rG
operators probably
-
pep.
Yeah I don't think either. Maybe _only_ operators, would be best
-
Kev
I'd have thought if this is an XSF activity, members is appropriate, with CC to operators anything that will interest them.
-
moparisthebest
yea I was just linking other people for some feedback
-
moparisthebest
and it was super hard to find a link that I assumed would be on the mailing lists page that I assumed would list all mailing lists :)
-
Neustradamus
Kev, intosi: it will be nice to have a ML for jabber.org service and updates on https://www.jabber.org/notices.html about problems like previously
-
Neustradamus
http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/juser <-- not clear if it is for jabber.org service
-
SamWhited
IETF folks that also idle here: are you aware of any SASL mechanisms similar to SCRAM (active or in development) that use Argon2 instead of PBKDF.2? I was going to use Argon2 on some passwords since it's the current OWASP recommendation, but there's a chance I'll want to use the same credentials with an XMPP server later (though not in a way that requires wide support, so it doesn't matter if it's still in draft or something).
-
SamWhited
I assume a quick search would have revealed it if it was already a thing, but I figured there might be an I-D which tend to be harder to find.
-
Zash
Not sure if I qualify, but I'm pretty sure you can swap out PBKDF2 for some other equivalent construct.
-
SamWhited
In SCRAM you mean? I think it allows you to swap out the hash used in the HMAC, but not the key derivation function. Let me double check, it would be nice if I was mistaken.
-
Zash
I do believe that the general construct still makes sense with a different key derivation function.
-
SamWhited
Oh yah, it does, but I'm hesitant to do something completely non-standard
-
jonasw
yeah, but it’s not standardised
-
jonasw
SamWhited, cp scram-rfc.xml argon-scram-rfc.xml; sed -i s/pbkdf2/argon2/g argon-scram-rfc.xml; submitrfc argon-scram-rfc.xml? ;-)
-
SamWhited
jonasw: what and where are those XML files located?
-
SamWhited
"What are those XML files and where are the located", that is. That sentence got away from me.
-
SamWhited
They… *facepalm* I really can't type.
-
Zash
Yeah, where are those?
-
SamWhited
I only recently discovered that there actually is a big XML file with RFC information… the IETF has even worse search engine rankings and visibility problems than we do, I'm pretty convinced.
-
SamWhited
But it's not detailed and doesn't include I-Ds, as far as I know.
-
Zash
https://www.iana.org/assignments/sasl-mechanisms/sasl-mechanisms.xhtml#sasl-mechanisms-1
-
SamWhited
ooh that's a good idea, thanks. Although I don't think that lists any I-Ds that might be floating around out there; still, good starting place!
-
moparisthebest
hey, ALPN ids are listed now https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values/tls-extensiontype-values.xhtml#alpn-protocol-ids
-
moparisthebest
kind of a strange way to word the protocol, but I guess it's correct enough?
-
moparisthebest
XMPP jabber:client namespace
-
moparisthebest
XMPP jabber:server namespace
-
Tobias
wonder why some IDs are rather long and some others short
-
Zash
SamWhited: There's http://www.ietf.org/download/id-index.txt but it's huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge
-
moparisthebest
oh that's how it's listed in the XEP too, did I do that? hehe
-
Zash
And maybe the kitten wg?
-
Tobias
ah..it's the idrect textual representation
-
Zash
https://tools.ietf.org/wg/sasl/ https://tools.ietf.org/wg/kitten/
-
pep.
https://bpaste.net/show/138cf21c832d irccloud.com just updated their term apparently, some IRC web client. I feel this will be relevant to movim instance admins, edhelas
-
Ge0rG
That's interesting, they claim to be a data processor.
-
pep.
yeah I noticed as well
-
lovetox
Syndace, how is your omemo lib writing going
-
Syndace
lovetox, I spent the last days trying to get a simple client up and running that echoes OMEMO messages, with partial success. Debugging is extremely annoying as the OMEMO of the official clients is a mess. I once accidantly published some wrong data to the pep node and the OMEMO plugin for Gajim completely died and remained unusable till now. Trying to send messages just fills my terminal with stack traces. Conversations sends some weird empty message after the initial handshake. I thought I understood why it sends that message but then I found that Conversations 2.0 sends a different, even weirder message... The small success: If my handmade client does the active handshake, the echoing works with Conversations as expected, so the crypto should be fine :) I'm at the point where I'd probably need to dig into the code of conversations and gajim to understand the problem, but I really really really don't want to, got a lot of work atm. But thank you for asking, I just remembered that my goal is to provide the crypto and not to provide a working client. Tomorrow I'll clean up a last few things and release it, so you can try your luck with other clients :D
-
Syndace
Neustradamus: Hi! I'm fine, thanks :D
-
lovetox
im the developer of the omemo plugin
-
lovetox
in gajim
-
lovetox
so if you need help add me lovetox@conversations.im
-
lovetox
also if you release your work i can adapt it to gajim, and then you dont have to put work into the whole client and xmpp protocol stuff
-
pep.
Syndace, delegate! :)
-
pep.
less work for you
-
lovetox
yes, its really better you just release the work, and let client devs implement it
-
lovetox
afterwards you can use the client to debug encryption related stuff
-
lovetox
im offering to do this as soon as you release it
-
Syndace
One question about the licensing stuff: I already have MIT checked into the repo currently. Now, I have to release GPL as we discussed recently. If I just commit the new license, then someone can clone an earlier commit and get the earlier code including the MIT file. Is that a problem?
-
Syndace
Wow thank you!
-
pep.
hmm, I guess they can fork an ealier version of the work, though they would be liable? Maybe you can explain the reasons you're changing to GPL somewhere
-
peter
It's always dangerous to change licenses in midstream...
-
pep.
git-filter-branch!
-
jonasw
SamWhited, it was merely a convoluted way of saying "take the SCRAM rfc and do the same for argon2" sorry I got your hopes up (cc @ Zash)
-
Syndace
pep.: Thing is, I'm not just "changing" the license because I want to but the first license was never the correct one and I could get sued if I don't publish as GPL. git filter branch? Those dark areas of git that I try to avoid :D
-
jonasw
Syndace, git filter-branch or something equivalent is your only way.
-
jonasw
alternatively, you can squash the history
-
jonasw
why are you bound to GPL though?
-
Zash
Are you, really?
-
Zash
Probably should take what us non-lawyers say with a truckload of salt
-
lovetox
Syndace, clone your repo somewhere for backup
-
lovetox
squash everything into one inital commit before releasing
-
lovetox
upload finished
-
pep.
squash is meh :/
-
Syndace
Zash, I am bound to GPL. Until we define our own wireformat.
-
jonasw
Syndace, what
-
jonasw
source for that?
-
Syndace
jonasw, for what? That I'm bound to GPL?
-
jonasw
yeah
-
Syndace
I guess I could create a fresh repo with just the newest commit and release that one
-
jonasw
that doesn’t make sense to me
-
lovetox
someone told him here
-
lovetox
because he looked into signal source for the wire format
-
Syndace
jonasw, to be abled to talk to libsignal I needed to copy a few params from theit code
-
Syndace
I don't think there is any way that is not GPL
-
jonasw
isn’t there a specification aside from that code?
-
Syndace
For large parts, yes
-
jonasw
anyways, heading out.
-
Syndace
But the specification says for example: "Set this parametet to an application specific ASCII string"
-
Syndace
Which I had to copy from libsignal because it is not defined anywhere
-
Syndace
But then again, it's no problem to switch to MIT once we define our own parameters
-
pep.
Not really sure what's frightening about GPL tbh
-
Zash
Probably a bit of FUD on account of Moxie & co being weird with reimplementation of signalprotocol
-
pep.
I meant, why not just stick to GPL
-
Syndace
pep.: GPL is fine for now but I personally don't like the philosophy to force open sourcers to use some license.
-
pep.
Depends on your end goal
-
lovetox
pep., because not every client can ship gpl code
-
lovetox
there is a huge discussion about this
-
lovetox
on the list
-
pep.
lovetox, that can be distributed via another channel? You already have plugins for gajim for example
-
Zash
pep.: I was on why GPL, not why not.
-
pep.
But tbh if it were me I'd just put the client under GPL
-
lovetox
poezio for example is not under GPL if i remember correctly
-
mathieui
zlib indeed
-
lovetox
also jitsi i think
-
pep.
yeah but we also have plugins. There is no case for now for external plugins though, since all are commited in the source
-
lovetox
smacks lib i think is also not
-
pep.
But it would be doable
-
mathieui
lovetox, it was gplv3 at the beginning though
-
lovetox
yeah of course, but if someone does the work and rewrites a whole lib from scratch
-
lovetox
why not work to the goal to make it with a good license
-
lovetox
that lets every option open
-
Syndace
lovetox: my thoughta
-
pep.
good is definitely subjective here. It also lets the option for companies to just reuse it and use your work without giving anything back
-
pep.
Or anybody really
-
SamWhited
That seems perfectly fine… I don't really care if people give back to my work, I just want it to be as usable as possible.
-
pep.
I do care
-
Syndace
I'll go with the beer license
-
SamWhited
I'd rather not force a choice on the majority of people who will give back and use my open source in a good way. If one or two people are bad actors that's unfortunate, but it's not worth hurting the large number of people who aren't already using the GPL just for the possibility that one person might do something bad.
-
Syndace
and make it copyleft
-
pep.
SamWhited, I guess I see it the other way around. What would it cost you to release under GPL, and also have the one next to you release under GPL, etc. The main reason I see not wanting to use GPL is if you explicitely want to allow not giving back
-
SamWhited
Why should I relicense my thing just because you want to use a different license? It seems arrogant of you to want me to change what I've already done just because you think something else is better.
-
lovetox
pep. you use it if you want that as many people as possible use it
-
pep.
lovetox, usage is not restricted in any case
-
lovetox
yes it is if it means i have to publish my source
-
SamWhited
But yes, I want my thing distributed as widely as possible, so I'm not going to put stupid restrictions on that. If someone abuses it, that's unfortunate, but most people won't.
-
lovetox
you say its not restricted under X conditions
-
pep.
lovetox, right sorry I was out
-
lovetox
some people cant just live with these conditions so will not use it
-
pep.
lovetox, I wouldn't go as far as that
-
SamWhited
And especially if it's a security thing then I definitely want it to be usable by proprietary closed source software. We're not going to get rid of it by using the GPL, but we can possibly make it more secure by not using the GPL.
-
pep.
SamWhited, I'm not sure where you want to go with the security thing.
-
lovetox
it simple if you have higher goals
-
pep.
If people want to use a library they can'T, then too bad for them?
-
pep.
either they comply or they don't use it
-
lovetox
if my goal is government not spying on people because i think it makes a better world
-
SamWhited
Exactly where I went; if someone is making a bunch of garbage IOT devices that are insecure, and I make a library that makes auth easy and they consider using it, I don't want them not to use it because I arrogantly claim that they have to release their source if they bundle my library.
-
lovetox
i couldnt care less if companys use my encryption and make money with it
-
lovetox
because my goal is still reached
-
SamWhited
What lovetox said; of course, that's a very specific niche goal, I'm just sick of people pretending that there's no downside or tradeoffs with the GPL.
-
SamWhited
There are plenty of reasons not to use it.
-
lovetox
also companys like google do this
-
pep.
Ok, well we definitely don't have the same goals, I guess I got that
-
lovetox
this is my opinion of course
-
lovetox
but often they release under licenses that allow not to give back
-
lovetox
because if you use there stuff it gets spreaded
-
lovetox
and when everyone uses it you depend on google stuff suddenly
-
lovetox
they profit in other ways from it
-
pep.
Note, I didn't say a word about me making profit
-
moparisthebest
I think I'm the one that said that, and IANAL
-
moparisthebest
but I believe that if you copy even any tiny part from a GPL library, or possibly even look at it before implementing a replacement, it's a derivitive work that must be licenensed GPL, does that sound right?
-
moparisthebest
besides if API's are copyrightable I'm not sure anything matters anymore https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-27/oracle-wins-revival-of-billion-dollar-case-against-google ...
-
flow
moparisthebest, that is my interpretation too