Re: Public TURN servers. Why Jami?

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

Сергей Петров <address@hidden> wrote:
>> what exactly have motivated you and your friend to experiment with Jami, 
>> instead of sticking with a standard, i. e. SIP-based, solution?
>
> Mostly it's because of privacy

‘Privacy’ is a buzzword, I suppose you mean end-to-end encryption.

Using standard SIP in no way prevents you from encrypting your calls.  The most 
usable (for an end-user) protocol is called ‘ZRTP’, and itʼs somewhat widely 
adopted.

Speaking of *droid-like OSʼes: out-of-a-box client of course does not support 
it, but two of three other free SIP-clients alive — namely Linphone [1] and 
Baresip [2] — do. (Third is our Jami, which does _not_).

[1] https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.linphone
[2] https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.tutpro.baresip

Thatʼs for calls; as for messaging — unfortunately, itʼs complicated.  Iʼd 
simply suggest you to use more popular protocols, such as email (+ PGP), for 
messaging instead.

Alternatively, if you and all your correspondents are willing to sacrifice a 
bit of interoperability (youʼve actually already agreed to give up much more of 
it), then you can choose Linphone as your SIP-client: itʼs pretty 
cross-platform and supports a homebrewed (sigh) protocol for encrypted 
messaging.  But it would be still much better to have interoperable encrypted 
calls, interoperable cleartext¹ messaging and only encrypted messaging somewhat 
locked to a vendor, than being completely detached from the federation as with 
Jami (the network).

And going back to the initial point, if, regardless of using Linphone, you 
register² an account at <https://linphone.org>, theyʼll provide you with a 
relay, which may turn out to be more reliable.

> anonymity

Nothing forces you to reveal your name either.  Though some providers, like 
above-mentioned linphone.org, may incline you to link your account to a phone 
number, itʼs not required neither for using their services, nor by any means 
for using SIP as a federated network.

> and so on.

Namely?


-
¹ In the same sense as this message (if we put public mailing list aside) it 
cleartext: itʼs not end-to-end encrypted; and nobody guarantees that all 
hop-to-hop connections are TLS-encapsulated (though normally they are).

² For anyone, who cares enough about software freedom: the last time, when Iʼd 
checked (about a year ago), signing up at linphone.org surprisingly did not 
require running nonfree software in your browser.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature