You're not promising anything, it's just a hint that the other side should automatically delete a message. If anything, it's most useful that it auto-deletes it from your own device from the perspective of physical security. You can phrase it as "Request automatic deletion" to make it more clear that you don't control the other end.
People already have a casual understanding that you can't completely enforce message deletion. People take photos of snapchats and other ephemeral messages all the time. I think it would even be useful to have a way to manually save a message marked as ephemeral before it disappears, without needing to take a photo for instance, because the camera roll is even less secure. Here's a short list of messaging apps with ephemeral features: * Snapchat * Facebook Messenger * Signal * Wire * Wickr Sending ephemeral messages doesn't have to be about privacy, data security, etc. Some people just think it's fun. On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:43 AM, forenjunkie <forenjun...@chello.at> wrote: > But it doesnt work with a decentral, open source kind of system. > a feature like that depends on the other side deleting the message. > > you are lying to your users the minute you offer this feature in your > client and not show a disclaimer. > you promise the message will self destruct, but you can never be sure, > because you have no control over the other side. > you would have to show a disclaimer: We dont know if it gets deleted, we > hope it does. > > and who would send sensitive information after reading this disclaimer? > > regards > lovetox > > > Am 01.11.2016 um 18:17 schrieb Chris Ballinger: > > Regardless of whether or not "we" think it's a good idea, users are > starting to demand the feature, especially because it's now present in > almost every mainstream messaging app. > > At some point we will probably implement it because it's a relatively > simple feature with a lot of demand. When that time comes, I'd like other > apps to be able to interoperate with us. > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:24 AM, Ivan Vučica <i...@vucica.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, 19:40 Kim Alvefur, <z...@zash.se> wrote: >> >>> >>> The question becomes why should we standardize something that only works >>> in a closed system? >> >> >> The reason to standardize is, as with open systems, so that multiple >> servers and clients can provide the same feature. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Standards mailing list >> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards >> Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org >> _______________________________________________ >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org > _______________________________________________ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org > _______________________________________________ > >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
