I for one am glad there is someone to stand up for him - it makes it very easy to tell who wants to cherrypick and debate semantics due to their own biases.
^ mentions: "Civilians are prohibited from possessing knives, machetes, and other bladed weapons officially issued to the police, military, and other official authorities without a special license"
Otherwise there are laws wrt possession of certain "weapon" knifes, and carrying knifes in public; but not mere possession of ordinary knifes. It's also not clear to me it's illegal to own "weapon" knifes kept at home.
>Somehow we lost all perspective and have come to expect that our officers, whose jobs regularly confront them with mortal danger and the darkest parts of human nature, will always display the same perfect virtues we carefully signal everyday on Facebook
I don't know about you but I don't have to "carefully" display not killing people who are on the ground unarmed. You're depicting people with 6 months of training as if they were in a fucking warzone every day.
>it seems hard-coding an IV and giving the user the ability to disable randomization may unnecessarily make unwitting users vulnerable
Yes. There's not a great reason to disable the randomization here. You're safe if each link uses a new key, but if it was possible for a user to use the same key and IV for a different link, an attacker with access to the first link could now use it to access the second.
>Clients negotiate end-to-end encryption session key between themselves the same way as a chat app would.
how are you doing this exactly? a 50 way diffie-hellman that renegotiates every time a user leaves or joins? How do you plan on doing that without any substantial lag?
>2. Each client sends the server two (or more) encrypted video streams, varying in bandwidth and keyframes per second
you have managed to double your egress for almost no value.
> how are you doing this exactly? a 50 way diffie-hellman that renegotiates every time a user leaves or joins?
By doing whatever Signal and Whatsapp do to support 50-person encrypted group chats.
> you have managed to double your egress
Not at all.
Firstly, the whole point of having two streams is to accommodate viewers with different bandwidth requirements, so the second stream will be a fraction the size of the first. If I'm already uploading HD video at 5 Mbps, and I start also sending an SD stream at 1 Mbps, my egress has risen by only 20%.
Secondly, the h264 spec provides for 'Scalable Video Coding' [1] where a high quality stream can have a lower quality 'subset bitstream' allowing a high-quality video to be converted to low quality by selectively dropping packets. So your egress might not rise by even 20%! Although this h264 feature is less widely used, potentially raising engineering costs.
A master node negotiates a symmetric key that lasts for the duration of the call. The master is either selected by the server or in round of Paxos, and since everybody has the same key, if he leaves it just needs a new round of negotiation.
Only compared to the current, unencrypted version. For E2E encryption, the alternative, as I see it, is pushing out an encrypted video stream per recipient. He has reduced his egress from O(n) to O(1).
I for one am glad there is someone to stand up for him - it makes it very easy to tell who wants to cherrypick and debate semantics due to their own biases.