E2EE is not part of the standard and only exists as a proprietary Google extension, using Google’s servers. Implying that implementing RCS would get everyone cross-platform E2EE is misinformation.

RCS, as adopted by GSMA , is zero encryption text messaging. RCS with encryption is a proprietary Google product and relies on Google servers.

On my phone, so links may come later. It’s hard to find solid documentation on it, since their encryption extension is proprietary, but it’s been referenced as being based on the Signal Protocol. The Signal Protocol, or every implementation of it that I’ve seen, uses a central “trusted” repository of public keys to tell message originators query to encrypt the message to. For Signal, and I assume Google RCS, that central repository is Google. The protocol doesn’t allow for federation, so any system that is interoperable with Google RCS will rely on Google as the trusted authority.

The private key part I’m much less sure of, since both the Signal and Google RCS clients are closed source. Signal makes you jump through hoops to add a new client, involving one of your currently installed clients. This suggests that Signal isn’t in possession of your private keys. On the other hand, all you need to set up a new Google client is your account password. This suggests that either your keys are held by Google (perhaps encrypted by your account password) or that new keys can be added without needing explicit involvement from current keys.

Of course this is all speculation because the implementations aren’t available for inspection.

So is this going to be standard RCS, which has no encryption and the telcos need to support, or the Googlified version that does E2E encryption but requires storing keys on Google’s servers?

RCS has interoperability issues itself and Google hasn’t been making the situation better.

Yes. I’m a man of few words.

Edit: I read the article (ugh, sky is shite. That’s minutes of my life I won’t get back.) and admit that the headline was bullshit. I’m ashamed that I fell for it.

I voted for him on his not-Trump platform last time and I won’t vote for him this time unless he stops this shit in Israel. Either he shapes up or steps down from the primaries… or we risk Trump again.

I’m not arguing with the content of the article, but it’s always so telling to see old men in fancy suits in front of tanks crewed by young men. The former, from positions of comfort, will be making decisions payed for by the lives of the latter.

Metric carton of eggs.

Even if that was the case, the IDF have no moral high ground when attacking the hospital. That just makes their job of killing Hamas harder. Hamas is an irregular force, a terrorist organization. They don’t follow the rules of war. But IDF is a regular army and should act like one lest we see them as a terrorist organization too.

If a dangerous criminal is found milling about in a crowd of people, even if some of of the people are sympathetic to him, the police don’t get to just mow the crowd down to get to him.

Or maybe they worry that if Israel fails as a nation, some of the Jews there will move to Germany and they know how they’ll react to that too well.

I can’t tell if this is a troll post or if you need to ask for a refund for your education.

24 Hamas hostages + 39 Israeli hostages = scores of Palestinian and Israeli hostages.

I’m just surprised that they didn’t refer to the women and children held hostage by Israel as “prisoners“ or “detainees“, while referring to those held by Hamas as “hostages”. As if there’s some benign reason to capture women and children and then use them as currency if one party does it but not the other.