I haven't read exactly but last I had heard that was out
Guushas left
Guushas left
jerehas left
jerehas joined
jerehas left
matlaghas left
ibikkhas joined
moparisthebesthas left
jerehas joined
matlaghas joined
Tobiashas joined
lskdjfhas joined
jerehas left
tahas joined
j.rhas joined
j.rhas joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
jerehas joined
mimi89999has left
mimi89999has left
Tobiashas joined
mimi89999has joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
jerehas left
jerehas joined
Lancehas left
Neustradamushas joined
j.rhas joined
goffihas joined
jonaswhas joined
Tobiashas joined
Nekithas left
jerehas joined
matlaghas left
Guushas joined
Guushas left
j.rhas joined
Guushas left
Guushas left
tim@boese-ban.dehas joined
lskdjfhas joined
SamWhitedhas left
Tobiashas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
la|r|mahas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
moparisthebesthas joined
Seve/SouLhas joined
j.rhas joined
danielhas left
danielhas joined
moparisthebesthas joined
ralphmhas left
ralphmhas joined
Guushas left
mimi89999has joined
moparisthebesthas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
danielhas left
Zashhas left
Guushas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
Williams Whas joined
Guushas left
danielhas joined
Williams Whas left
Williams Whas joined
Yagizahas joined
Williams Whas left
Williams Whas joined
Williams Whas left
Williams Whas joined
Williams Whas left
Williams Whas joined
Williams Whas left
Williams Whas joined
Tobiashas joined
Williams W
?
Williams W
hello
Williams Whas left
Williams Whas joined
Williams Whas left
Williams Whas joined
Williams Whas left
Williams Whas joined
Williams W
?
Williams W
?
Guushas left
la|r|mahas joined
Yagizahas left
lskdjfhas joined
flow
Williams W, hi
Williams Whas left
Williams Whas joined
Williams W
?
Williams Whas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Williams Whas joined
jubalhhas joined
alexishas left
Williams Whas left
Guushas left
alexishas joined
Yagizahas joined
danielhas left
Guushas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
Valerianhas joined
alexishas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
alexishas joined
moparisthebesthas joined
moparisthebesthas joined
xnyhpshas joined
Valerianhas left
Valerianhas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
jubalhhas left
rionhas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
Tobiashas joined
Steve Killehas left
danielhas joined
Steve Killehas left
ThibGhas left
ThibGhas joined
Steve Killehas joined
Marandahas joined
winfriedhas joined
winfriedhas joined
Valerianhas left
Valerianhas joined
Marandahas joined
Yagizahas left
Valerianhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas joined
vanitasvitaehas left
Yagizahas joined
vanitasvitaehas joined
vanitasvitaehas left
Williams Whas joined
vanitasvitaehas joined
Williams Whas left
SaltyBoneshas left
Williams Whas joined
Williams Whas left
Williams Whas joined
Williams Whas left
Valerianhas joined
Williams Whas joined
Williams Whas left
danielhas left
danielhas joined
Guushas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
jubalhhas joined
nycohas left
Yagizahas left
Williams Whas joined
Williams Whas left
alexishas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
Guushas left
Yagizahas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
Zashhas left
Alexhas joined
jubalhhas left
jubalhhas joined
jubalhhas left
moparisthebesthas joined
moparisthebesthas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
xnyhpshas joined
Zashhas left
Alexhas left
Alexhas joined
SaltyBoneshas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
marmistrzhas joined
ThibGhas left
ThibGhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Guushas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
marmistrzhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
waqashas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
xnyhpshas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
moparisthebesthas joined
sezuanhas left
moparisthebesthas joined
SaltyBoneshas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
vanitasvitaehas left
Guushas left
Guushas left
goffihas left
Guushas left
Guushas left
goffihas joined
Guushas left
Guushas left
Guushas left
Guushas left
Guushas left
vanitasvitaehas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas joined
jubalhhas joined
cookiehas joined
pep.
GDPR thing in 10min
winfried
(y)
jubalhhas left
Ge0rG
winfried: do you happen to be using an old Gajim version?
jonasw
.
Williams Whas joined
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
```
Dave Cridlandhas left
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?
juliushas joined
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!
Nekithas joined
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
Dave Cridlandhas left
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.
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
moparisthebesthas joined
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?
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
Alexhas left
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.
Alexhas joined
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?
Dave Cridlandhas left
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?
nycohas left
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
Dave Cridlandhas left
Valerianhas left
Valerianhas joined
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 ;-)
Valerianhas left
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
Dave Cridlandhas left
jonasw
winfried, +1
pep.
Ah, hmm
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas joined
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
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas joined
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.
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas joined
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?
Also, in any case, the hosting provider will have access to the data
alexishas joined
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
Dave Cridlandhas left
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.
Dave Cridlandhas left
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?
alexishas left
Ge0rG
winfried: +1
alexishas joined
Ge0rG
we need to differentiate whether the other server is under GDPR as well or not.
jonaswhas left
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)
Dave Cridlandhas left
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?
lumihas joined
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"
Dave Cridlandhas left
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
Dave Cridlandhas left
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? ;)
alexishas left
Ge0rG
okay, I don't want to be required to do LE
alexishas joined
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
Dave Cridlandhas left
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
andyhas joined
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
BTW, that the BigCorps are required to provide all the data they store about you is also based on EU regulations
alexishas left
alexishas joined
LNJhas joined
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
alexishas left
jonasw
pfew, I was in luck. but still
alexishas joined
Yagizahas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
LNJhas left
alexishas left
jonasw
pep., looks good to me
pep.
Most of what we talked about today goes into Q1.1d
Zashhas left
pep.
There's this "Server logs: r49" line that's kind of sitting alone there, the rest is about consent :P
Dave Cridlandhas left
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..)
alexishas joined
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
Guushas left
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
Dave Cridlandhas left
jonasw
thank you for that already :)
Dave Cridlandhas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
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
juliushas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
jubalhhas joined
blablahas left
blablahas left
waqashas left
Guushas left
LNJhas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
jerehas left
jerehas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
Guushas left
SamWhitedhas left
waqashas joined
jubalhhas joined
SamWhitedhas left
SamWhitedhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
lumihas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
ThibGhas left
ThibGhas joined
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
Dave Cridlandhas left
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.
ludohas joined
jonasw
Kev, ease of use
jubalhhas left
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.
Dave Cridlandhas left
Zashhas left
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 :)
Guushas left
marmistrzhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
SaltyBoneshas left
marmistrzhas joined
Neustradamushas joined
j.rhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
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
Dave Cridlandhas left
Neustradamushas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Neustradamushas joined
Neustradamus
http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/juser <-- not clear if it is for jabber.org service
Dave Cridlandhas left
Neustradamushas left
Neustradamushas joined
LNJhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Guushas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
LNJhas joined
SamWhitedhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
Guushas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
alexishas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
davidhas joined
blablahas left
pep.has left
LNJhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
LNJhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Guushas left
Guushas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
j.rhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
LNJhas left
Valerianhas left
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).
marchas left
Guushas left
sezuanhas left
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.
Dave Cridlandhas left
Zash
Not sure if I qualify, but I'm pretty sure you can swap out PBKDF2 for some other equivalent construct.
Guushas left
Guushas left
Guushas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
danielhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
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.
nycohas left
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: 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.
alexishas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
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.
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
jerehas left
jerehas joined
Ge0rG
That's interesting, they claim to be a data processor.
pep.
yeah I noticed as well
ludohas left
ludohas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
jubalhhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
lovetox
Syndace, how is your omemo lib writing going
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
SaltyBoneshas left
Holgerhas left
alexishas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
alexishas left
Valerianhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
tuxhas joined
tuxhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
alexishas joined
winfriedhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
ibikkhas left
alexishas left
alexishas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
marchas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
alexishas left
alexishas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
marchas left
marmistrzhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
blablahas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
jubalhhas joined
Alexhas left
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
Ge0rGhas left
la|r|mahas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
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!
Guushas left
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
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...
Guushas left
pep.
git-filter-branch!
Lancehas left
marchas joined
LNJhas left
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
LNJhas joined
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?
Dave Cridlandhas left
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?
Dave Cridlandhas left
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?
Dave Cridlandhas left
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"
marchas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
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
Dave Cridlandhas left
Zash
Probably a bit of FUD on account of Moxie & co being weird with reimplementation of signalprotocol
marchas joined
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.
jonaswhas left
Yagizahas left
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
Lancehas joined
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
Guushas left
Guushas left
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.
Kevhas joined
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
marmistrzhas left
pep.
Note, I didn't say a word about me making profit
Guushas left
Guushas left
Guushas left
ThibGhas left
ThibGhas joined
ludohas joined
sezuanhas left
sezuanhas left
sezuanhas joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
Dave Cridlandhas left
lskdjfhas left
j.rhas left
Guushas left
lskdjfhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
Dave Cridlandhas left
j.rhas joined
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?
tahas joined
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 ...