Talk:FireChat

Untitled
This article is misleading and substantially non-npov. I am an employee of Open Garden, but I am editing this article as an individual, not as part of my job. Because of this conflict of interest, I am describing all of my concerns and edits in as much detail as I can. I have so far made only minor changes, and I am posting the remarks below in advance of any future changes. I'm happy to make the changes myself, but it would of course be preferable if someone without a COI actually made the changes. However, in its current form, the article is problematic and not up to Wikipedia standards, and I feel confident in my ability to maintain npov, so I could do it too. Despite my personal conflict of interest regarding FireChat, I removed personal information about the authors of Blueeee, because it was uncited, clearly irrelevant to FireChat, and likely an attempt at promotion by an interested party. I believe the reference to Blueee should be deleted entirely. Here is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FireChat&diff=prev&oldid=631008411
 * Removal of self-promotion
 * The other text I removed

Despite my personal conflict of interest, I made that modification because the text was inaccurate and grossly misleading.

Firstly, 802.11s and FireChat are not comparable things. 802.11s is a link-layer technology that requires device and kernel level support, whereas FireChat is application-layer (and in limited cases, network-layer) software that runs on specific devices. It's like comparing the Sony Walkman to 8-track tapes. The Sony Walkman was a specific implementation of an already existing and widely deployed standard (cassette tapes), whereas 8-track tapes are a separate standard. I'm sure 8-track tapes had advantages over cassette tapes, but that should be discussed on the 8-track and cassette tape pages, not the Sony Walkman page. The mesh networking technology used by FireChat is Apple's Multipeer Connectivity Framework, which could conceivably be compared to 802.11s (though even that would be suspect, as 802.11s uses wifi only, whereas MCF combines can use Wifi, Bluetooth or even wired Ethernet).

But the comparison is much more flawed than that. As of 2014, no major mobile phone manufacturers support 802.11s. If they did, then FireChat could use it. But given that they don't, never have, and have announced no plans to, the consideration of 802.11s seems wishful, to put it charitably.

The description of 802.11s as "much more mature" is questionable at best. The word mature is itself problematic, as it entails objective characteristics (like age or number of attempts) but also connotes subjective superiority. Even to the limited extent 802.11s is comparable, this claim is dubious. While 802.11s is older and has been attempted more times, I can see no evidence--and certainly no secondary sources--that suggest it is more robust or in any measurable sense superior to MCF (or FireChat running on MCF).

In fact, as far as I can tell, 802.11s has remained, since its conception in 2003, an experimental project, not an operational technology. The One Laptop Per Child uses its own mesh networking protocol that was originally designed around 802.11s, but was never fully compliant with it, and 802.11s support no longer appears to be a priority for OLPC. The most prominent 802.11s webpage appears not to have been updated in at least 18 months (for example, at announces, a conference that was to take place in Spring 2013). OpenWRT partially supports it. I have found academic papers and technical reports that assess it favorably, but I can find no examples in which it has effectively served an end-user need.

Lastly, the claim that 802.11s "can support encryption" is misleading. The Multipeer Connectivity Framework has always supported encryption, and FireChat has used that encryption since its first release. While it is true that 802.11s supports encryption, it is hardly unique, as all prominent wifi standards do too. Some FireChat messages are sometimes sent without encryption, but the prior language implies that FireChat is inherently incapable of supporting encryption. This is untrue: any data can be encrypted, including FireChat messages, regardless of the data-link layer involved.

Anyway, mentioning encryption in this context is itself misleading. The point of encryption is to make a message visible to fewer recipients; the point of FireChat is to spread messages as widely as possible--in particular, in situations where Internet access is compromised. It is on that basis that its popularity surged in Thailand and Hong Kong. FireChat does not currently include any private messaging features. FireChat (so far, anyway) is a megaphone, not a telephone. See here. The article as a whole appears calculated to critique more than to inform.
 * justification for 'npov' template

Wikipedia articles about other prominent social apps typically don't mention the source model (eg Instagram, Twitter, Tinder), and in the cases they do (eg SnapChat, Kik), the information is listed among many other details in a sidebar. In the FireChat article, the app is called "proprietary" in the introductory sentence. To call attention to the source model in this fashion implies that its propriertary nature is particularly significant, and the reader is left to infer it as a deficiency. There are legitimate reasons to prefer free/open source software over proprietary software. If those reasons apply to FireChat specifically, that should be discussed clearly and cited appropriately, not implied by the atypical prominence of a normatively-charged modifier.

My plan: use an "Infobox software" sidebar, and include in it a "license" item in the manner done in comparable articles.

Blueeee, the only application mentioned in the Overview section, is fundamentally different from FireChat. It does not use mesh networking, and it did not see widespread adoption. There are negligibly few secondary sources that discuss Blueeee, and I can see no evidence it is noteworthy. A history (or perhaps enumeration) of off-grid chat apps is probably appropirate for Wikipedia, but it's outside the scope of this article. Possibly discussion of Blueee, along with other comparable apps, should go on Bluechat.

The discussion of Blueeee on this page seems calibrated to promote Blueeee, not to inform the reader about FireChat.

My plan: move discussion of Blueeee to a more relevant article, or delete it.

The "Uses" section doesn't describe how FireChat is used. Instead, it notes the app's adoption in Iraq and Hong Kong. The rest of the paragraph is devoted to describing the lack of anonymity or encryption. Not a single actual feature or use case or is described.

A comprehensive discussion of FireChat's features is appropriate for the article. In that context, the lack of cetain potential features might be also relevant. For any claimed merit or deficiency, the article should explain how and why the thing is good or bad, and cite sources accordingly. Discussion of anything's merits/deficiencies is a necessarily subjective enterprise, and should be done with particular epistemic modesty. Wikipedia is not a product review site or feature request page.

'''My plan: add a Features section that describes both current features and potential features. Rewrite the Use section to describe FireChat's actual usage.'''
 * justification for 'outdated' template

This specifically references the claim "the app does not encrypt in any way." This claim is false and uncited, as the app has always encrypted over MFC. More significantly, it currently encrypts all Internet traffic over TLS. This has been independently analyzed. The article I've linked to would be a good source for the article.

My plan: add a discussion of FireChat's current encryption in the features page.

Acone (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

privacy violations - spyware at its finest
Well, this is not a part of the Wikipedia article but I met this program and I have read their privacy policy. Have anyone ever did it? No? I guess so.

I have never seen so far a valid business to have such outrageous privacy policy. Let me summarise it: That's bad. Real bad. --grin ✎ 11:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * we will gather every possible private data available on your phone (sms, images, contacts, all)
 * we may (and possibly will) get the data
 * we may (and possibly will) sell the data to third parties
 * we may (and possibly will) send you spam ("marketig mterial"), sweepstakes and other kinds of spam
 * we may (and possibly will) you may not opt out of some of those
 * we may (and possibly will) use your device for whatever purposes we like, maybe we use you to spam others, who knows
 * release all and any rights you possibly can to us.

General
Just chill 200.123.214.143 (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)