Info regarding privacy.

[govinda17]

https://github.com/simplex-chat/simplex-chat/blob/stable/PRIVACY.md#information-we-may-share

"We operate our Services using third parties. While we do not share any user data, these third party may access the encrypted user data as it is stored or transmitted via our servers."

1. Can you please elaborate more? What services do you operate using third parties? Claiming and marketing as a privacy app is totally contradictory with "third party may access the encrypted user data". That totally makes the app and encryption useless together with this whole project.

"The cases when SimpleX Chat may need to share the data we temporarily store on the servers:
To meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request.
To enforce applicable Terms, including investigation of potential violations."

Can you state here for the people who have not read the terms and conditions in simple words what will be provided in case of a legal proceeding?
Will you surrender the queued messages that are not delivered and are stored on the server?
Thanks

[epoberezkin]

What services do you operate using third parties?

The messaging servers, the server where we host our f-droid repo, the clients you connect to when you "connect to developers". Using 3rd parties as hosting providers would be the case for any communication platform, maybe with the exception of Google, Facebook etc. Specifically, we use Linode as hosting provider.

Claiming and marketing as a privacy app is totally contradictory with "third party may access the encrypted user data".

I don't believe it is contradictory – the encrypted data can be accessed by multiple parties in any communication platform, that includes hosting providers, ISPs, network operators, and the likes.

That totally makes the app and encryption useless together with this whole project.

End-to-end encryption actually prevents the original messages from being accessed by the third parties. Possibly, you misread "encrypted messages can be accessed" as "original messages can be accessed"? Original messages cannot be accessed neither by servers nor by any third parties.

what will be provided in case of a legal proceeding?

Not more than the data we have, and most likely less than that. We are currently formulating a legal framework for such requests – we most likely will be looking for a proof that the user indeed was using a specific server before providing any information, this is to be clarified.

The data we have on the servers does not identify users in any way, it only includes queue addresses and public signature keys for recipient and sender, and undelivered encrypted messages are only temporarily persisted during server restarts, otherwise they are in server memory.

Will you surrender the queued messages that are not delivered and are stored on the server?

If there will be a sufficient legal basis for that from our point of view in the jurisdiction we operate, and we have these messages, we will comply. We will challenge any requests if our legal view is different from the one in the request.

[govinda17]

Yes exactly, i misread. I apologize for that. Thanks for the explanation.
Still i don't understand how authorities can ask for data for a certain user, when the users do not use phone number or id as identifier, even less if he is using incognito mode? In order to say "behind this user is Jon Doe" they have to identify and match JD, which according to your statements cannot be done (unless the user admits it himself).
If they do not have that person precisely identified then they will need to look through bulk data in order to draw some conclusion, which is forbidden by most laws.

[epoberezkin]

Yes exactly, i misread. I apologize for that.

No worries! Maybe we should re-phrase it somehow to make it clearer, I will think about it.

Still i don't understand how authorities can ask for data for a certain user, when the users do not use phone number or id as identifier, even less if he is using incognito mode?

Neither do I

(unless the user admits it himself).

Or the device is ceized and there are contacts on our servers when we will be provided with specific queue addresses. In which case we would have some information that we might be legally obliged to provide. All the policy says it is that there is such a possibility.

[govinda17]

Thanks for the response once again. It is amazing that the owner/ developer is so dedicated to the project that he personally takes care of issues.
P.s Please fix the ios android calling, since for most users its not working. (call cannot be established just says connecting)
Best.

[DeMoN100]

What services do you operate using third parties?

The messaging servers, the server where we host our f-droid repo, the clients you connect to when you "connect to developers". Using 3rd parties as hosting providers would be the case for any communication platform, maybe with the exception of Google, Facebook etc. Specifically, we use Linode as hosting provider.

Claiming and marketing as a privacy app is totally contradictory with "third party may access the encrypted user data".

That totally makes the app and encryption useless together with this whole project.

End-to-end encryption actually prevents the original messages from being accessed by the third parties. Possibly, you misread "encrypted messages can be accessed" as "original messages can be accessed"? Original messages cannot be accessed neither by servers nor by any third parties.

what will be provided in case of a legal proceeding?

Not more than the data we have, and most likely less than that. We are currently formulating a legal framework for such requests – we most likely will be looking for a proof that the user indeed was using a specific server before providing any information, this is to be clarified.

The data we have on the servers does not identify users in any way, it only includes queue addresses and public signature keys for recipient and sender, and undelivered encrypted messages are only temporarily persisted during server restarts, otherwise they are in server memory.

Will you surrender the queued messages that are not delivered and are stored on the server?

If there will be a sufficient legal basis for that from our point of view in the jurisdiction we operate, and we have these messages, we will comply. We will challenge any requests if our legal view is different from the one in the request.

This is very good to know and what I think should be done on the website is to make a page call it transparency trust and have all this explained in the simplistic terms for people with pictures and a breakdown list of what is stored, when, how long, why & who can see what. I can see people confused with hosting providers for servers and configuring traffic routing people will want to know if the default settings are secure or not.

Maybe explain where the servers are hosted because I bet a lot of people will wonder is this in switzerland because of their data laws. Probably explain how this works for people protected by the GDPR.

I don't believe it is contradictory – the encrypted data can be accessed by multiple parties in any communication platform, that includes hosting providers, ISPs, network operators, and the likes.

If your using the tor routing then all the ISP would see is this person is using Tor everything else should be unidentifiable. Am I mistaken about this? This actually makes me wonder have you considered adding as a second routing aside from Tor Lokinet? I hear the oxen nodes is more secure then Tor.

[epoberezkin]

This is very good to know and what I think should be done on the website is to make a page call it transparency

yes!

Maybe explain where the servers are hosted

I was considering to show it in the app per server, mostly for the latency sake on the recipient side. Without having data from the user device the data from the servers is relatively useless, so I am less worried about differences between jurisdictions.

If your using the tor routing then all the ISP would see is this person is using Tor everything else should be unidentifiable.

Correct, I was just making a general list. Tor relay operators can have some visibility in this case, although less so when the traffic doesn't leave Tor. If the whole Tor circuit is controlled by the same or collaborating parties, which isn't impossible, they would have visibility.

have you considered adding as a second routing aside from Tor

One of the reasons it's not embedded - I don't want to lock users into a specific transport anonymity layer, so even if we eventually embed something, we will keep general SOCKS proxy support so users can choose what better fits.

[DeMoN100]

I was considering to show it in the app per server, mostly for the latency sake on the recipient side. Without having data from the user device the data from the servers is relatively useless, so I am less worried about differences between jurisdictions.

I guess that could work in the app it shows them which one they are connected to. I was thinking a list on the site.

Correct, I was just making a general list. Tor relay operators can have some visibility in this case, although less so when the traffic doesn't leave Tor. If the whole Tor circuit is controlled by the same or collaborating parties, which isn't impossible, they would have visibility.

Right which is why I mentioned how you have a use .onion when avaliable switch to use tor to make a second one set for Lokinet.

One of the reasons it's not embedded - I don't want to lock users into a specific transport anonymity layer, so even if we eventually embed something, we will keep general SOCKS proxy support so users can choose what better fits.

It doesn't have to lock them in does it? I thought it could work like a flipswitch how you have it with the Tor option just adding a second one below or above & Lokinet.

[epoberezkin]

I don't think Lokinet can be used as a general purpose transport network that proxies TCP connections, or can it? Tor is not the only network - there are some others that can be used via SOCKS proxy.

[DeMoN100]

I don't think Lokinet can be used as a general purpose transport network that proxies TCP connections, or can it? Tor is not the only network - there are some others that can be used via SOCKS proxy.

I am almost certain that it can if tor can then yeah theres no reason why it shouldn't be able to as well. This is the protocol used in session so I believe SimpleX should be able to benefit from it as well.

Take a look
https://lokinet.org/faq

[epoberezkin]

yep, it indeed can be used in this way. Well, then somebody needs to make an Android app that provides Lokinet routing via SOCKS proxy and the job is done. Maybe, such an app already exists?

[DeMoN100]

I believe session does this already but you mean for you to copy the code? I wouldn't want to switch apps I would just like SimpleX to have that as a second option aside from the tor routing.

[epoberezkin]

No, I mean some external app that exposes LokiNet as SOCKS5 proxy, in the same way as Orbot does with Tor and Invisible with i2p – this is not our job to create SOCKS proxies to all existing overlay networks, as there are too many of them. We might embed Tor at some point, as it's the most popular network, but that's about it.

[DeMoN100]

I understand completely. I do hope you reconsider & later on add lokinet as an option. Tor may be the most popular but that's only because it was first. The rest are all still pretty new freenet, gnunet, zeronet, zeronetX. & Lokinet. I only ask you consider Lokinet because of Tor's vulnerabilities & Lokinet was designed to be more secure against those vulnerabilities. I also believe the Australian government recognises it as a safe to use since it was made in their own backyard by the top programmers of Australia.

[Wjxfi]

I understand completely. I do hope you reconsider & later on add lokinet as an option. Tor may be the most popular but that's only because it was first. The rest are all still pretty new freenet, gnunet, zeronet, zeronetX. & Lokinet. I only ask you consider Lokinet because of Tor's vulnerabilities & Lokinet was designed to be more secure against those vulnerabilities. I also believe the Australian government recognises it as a safe to use since it was made in their own backyard by the top programmers of Australia.

I continued your discussion thread, #1782

[Wjxfi]

[epoberezkin]

sorry, I don't understand the question