Re:Jitsi Meet Abandons Anonimity Promise
by pgeorgi on Monday September 04, 2023 @02:00PM
(#37383129)
3. only makes things miserable for everybody (instead of just deferring responsibility to the host), doesn't solve the problem
4. costs money and work for a free service
5. makes the service cost money
6. costs money to pull off (and/or makes the service cost money)
7. simple to pull off, yes. Uncertain how big the benefit really is.
8. If Apple permits that, that seems a sensible request in general. Doesn't solve the general issue since it's the same kind of megacorp as all the others.
9. that's the ideal case, and since they're operating from the US (Delaware company etc) might actually work. Might still bear the cost of every random county sheriff giving them a stern talking-to because they can't offer data during those investigations.
10. not an option at all.
So out of your 7 given options, only one (#7) is reasonably simple to implement with a potential benefit (do they need to block all the popular VPN services, too?)
4. costs money and work for a free service
5. makes the service cost money
6. costs money to pull off (and/or makes the service cost money)
7. simple to pull off, yes. Uncertain how big the benefit really is.
8. If Apple permits that, that seems a sensible request in general. Doesn't solve the general issue since it's the same kind of megacorp as all the others.
9. that's the ideal case, and since they're operating from the US (Delaware company etc) might actually work. Might still bear the cost of every random county sheriff giving them a stern talking-to because they can't offer data during those investigations.
10. not an option at all.
So out of your 7 given options, only one (#7) is reasonably simple to implement with a potential benefit (do they need to block all the popular VPN services, too?)