
Google Talk Chat History can no longer be turned off by default - qdot76367
https://support.google.com/talk/answer/161925
======
mullingitover
Whenever we get around to establishing a (glorious and best) totalitarian
government, it's really going to appreciate how easy it is to find out who the
loyal citizens are, and who the future gulag workers will be. People have
really gone out of their way to lay some really solid groundwork. We'll set
new records for efficiency in identifying those critical of the regime and
getting them separated from the pure-minded.

~~~
choko
When that happens, that government won't need Google to give them the
information. Chances are they already have it. AT&T's secret rooms have been
public knowledge since at least 2006.

------
moe
This comes at a funny time. Just today I searched for a secure (end-to-end
encrypted), multi-device capable IM service. It does not seem to exist.

You are forced to pick _either_ proper multi-device support (GTalk, Skype,
Hipchat) _or_ end-to-end privacy without multi-device support (libpurple based
client with OTR-plugin).

It's sad. It's especially sad that not even the utterly over-engineered XMPP
has bothered to specify proper multi-device support (conversations synced to
all devices).

~~~
dwdbah
Not sure I'd agree with over-engineered, but anyway.

End-to-end privacy with multi-device support has been specified in XMPP for
years; the problem is that it's vastly complicated and therefore nobody ever
implemented it.

In part this is because when XMPP was started, people wanted different things
from multi-device - they wanted to be able to leave their desktop logged in,
move to their laptop, and _not_ have the conversation pop up there - there
being no message-read state in XMPP. So instead, the idea was that you'd pull
the archive from the server if you wanted it.

Later, Carbons were introduced, which basically says that if the message
wouldn't normally come to "this" client, tell me about it anyway.

As for end-to-end... Well, the original RFCs include a method based on X.509
and CMS (RFC 3923). Never implemented. There's been various different concepts
since (OTR-esque and XMLSEC based). None has yet got traction, but you'd be
welcome to draw a line in the sand and implement one of them.

~~~
moe
_they wanted to be able to leave their desktop logged in, move to their
laptop, and not have the conversation pop up there_

Did someone outside the XMPP-bubble really request that?

Why would you possibly want to _not_ see the entire conversation when
switching between multiple devices?

 _the problem is that it's vastly complicated and therefore nobody ever
implemented it._

That's what I mean by over-engineered. As a matter of fact no single jabber
client or server (that I know of) supports multi-device sync, not even without
crypto. I.e. 13 years after its inception jabber (the "platform") still lacks
fundamental functionality. Despite tens of thousands of lines of specification
and lots of energy spent on absurdities like "transports".

------
deepblueocean
After seeing "off the record" chats synced across browser sessions a few
times, I became convinced that Google was storing the chat session on its
servers at least temporarily. I can't help but wonder if this is just a way to
remind people that "off the record" really isn't, and nobody should be relying
on that particular property.

~~~
gcr
The correct way is for google to be storing encrypted off-the-record chat
messages, decrypted by the client in javascript (or however the android client
would do it). That way, Google would be able to persist chat history across
devices if they share keys, but the stored ciphertext is useless to them.

Do we know if they're doing that?

~~~
eli
They're almost certainly not doing that. That would be _extremely_ difficult
to implement in a way that works in regular browsers without special plugins
and is still secure.

------
Osmium
I don't imagine any possible reason they'd have for removing the option that
isn't creepy.

~~~
shazow
The simplest explanation is that it would be hard to persist messages across
devices/apps without storing them somewhere.

~~~
Osmium
I appreciate that -- but there's a difference between "chat history enabled by
default [to make our services work better]" and "you can't turn off chat
history permanently." In the latter case, one could imagine it wouldn't be too
hard for Google to keep messages temporarily until they've been pushed to all
devices and then remove them from their servers?

~~~
shazow
A very legitimate point and question. Needless to say, it seems Google is not
trying to serve the same demographic and use-cases as say...
<http://www.whispersystems.org/>

Though I agree it would be nice if someday we could enable temporary history
and client-side encryption for everything. Perhaps this could be how
DuckDuckGo grows beyond just search. I would look forward to such a future.

------
nickfishman
This may have something to do with the FBI's recent push to monitor real-time
communications like Google Talk, Facebook chat, and similar services
([http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/03/26/andrew_we...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/03/26/andrew_weissmann_fbi_wants_real_time_gmail_dropbox_spying_power.html)).

------
stock_toaster
My guess is this: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5714557>

I think google is going to kill off gchat/xmpp entirely in favor of hangouts
eventually. :(

~~~
shrikant
I really wouldn't understand such a move. If I had to do a Hangout instead of
placing a voice call, this has major unfavourable implications on my
telecommunications:

1) I have to ensure that I shower and shave before every such call.

2) As a somewhat average looking (at best) chap, I have to contend with bias
(however subtle) against my appearance (especially when doing interviews and
such-like)

3) As a, uh, "person of colour" with a relatively clear accent when speaking
English, I have to contend with bias (however subtle) against my appearance
(especially when doing interviews and such-like)

4) (admittedly minor reason) I would be unable to physically goof off while
still sounding relatively professional (think pacing about, spinning on the
chair, stretching out on the couch, etc.)

For all these reasons, I've never understood the point of things like FaceTime
and Hangouts replacing normal voice calls.

~~~
tene
You can still do voice-only hangouts just fine. Sharing video is in no way a
requirement.

------
scott_karana
For any Googlers who hang around Hacker News, what's the most effective way
for us to report our displeasure with this feature removal?

~~~
kunai
Google Groups; although Google and its obstinacy won't listen.

------
nullc
This is good news: Don't pretend to not be logging something they're actually
logging (and, can't really choose not to log since they can be ordered to
secretly do so).

~~~
gurkendoktor
So Google (and others) can build a network of companies to avoid taxation, but
a chat system that's safe from eavesdropping would have been off-limits?

------
princess3000
I would assume that Google Now-type products work better when they have as
much information as possible, and making all chats save by default all the
time would be a good way to get much more information from people. Still, yes,
kind of creepy.

~~~
OGinparadise
_I would assume that Google Now-type products work better when they have as
much information as possible, and making all chats save by default all the
time would be a good way to get much more information from people._

IRS, FBI, your divorce lawyer, former business partner's lawyer and the local
police department also work better...when they have everything you've done,
where you've been (hello Android!)searched for and said all stored and
cataloged. If it's stored they'll get it, otherwise there's nothing to get. If
you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be worried and all. /s

~~~
princess3000
Yeah, I'm not thrilled about the change, just hypothesizing why they would
have made it from a business point of view.

------
mtgx
And here I was hoping for _real_ OTR encryption in Gtalk. Silly me.

------
antimatter
Stupid question. Do they only keep a history of chats happening inside the
Gmail chat client? I only ever use Google Talk via Adium or Pidgin. If they're
recording my conversations even when I'm not in the Gmail app and I can't turn
this off, then I think I'm done with my Google account.

~~~
fallse7en
Yep, they keep a history of chats even when you're using Pidgin. This is
pretty easy to confirm...

~~~
antimatter
How do you confirm other than looking for chat logs within Gmail? I don't have
any chat logs as I had all conversation logging disabled before this update.

------
o0-0o
This only makes sense if they monitor chat conversations.

~~~
bickfordb
Why are you worried about monitoring? Do you have something to hide?

~~~
gcr
Honest question: is this sarcsam? I can't tell.

------
dhess
Is there a way to disable Google Talk/Chat/whatever entirely, so that no one
can initiate a chat with me?

~~~
eli
Click the top left button in the the chat window (icon of a person) and pick
"Sign Out." AFAIK it will not sign back in unless you ask it to.

~~~
dhess
That does in fact work, even across browser sessions. Thanks!

------
trafficlight
I wasn't aware that Google Talk was keeping chat transcripts until a couple of
weeks ago. But it turned out to be a huge win for me when I had to deal with a
former business partner.

------
ChikkaChiChi
While my users today did get a message on their Windows clients, all my chat
histories still seem to be "off the record" for my Google Apps for Business
account.

Not sure how long that will last.

------
huntedsnark
Getting kind of sick of your shit, Google...

