• perestroika@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 个月前

    As a happy user of Signal (no bugs or incidents from my viewpoint), I regardless chime in to say a word for decentralization. :)

    Signal is centralized:

    • there is a single Signal implementation, with a single developing entity
    • you have to install its mobile version before you may run the desktop version

    There exist protocols like Tox which go a step beyond Signal and offer more freedom -> have multiple clients from diverse makers (some of them unstable), don’t have centralized registration, and don’t rely on servers to distribute messages - only to distribute contact information.

    In the grand comparison table of protocols (not clients), Tox is among the few lines that’s all green (Signal has one red square).

  • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 个月前

    This is a very rude question, but on this subject of being lean, I looked up your 990, and you pay yourself less than … well, you pay yourself half or a third as much as some of your engineers.

    Yes, and our goal is to pay people as close to Silicon Valley’s salaries as possible, so we can recruit very senior people, knowing that we don’t have equity to offer them. We pay engineers very well. [Leans in performatively toward the phone recording the interview.] If anyone’s looking for a job, we pay very, very well.

    But you pay yourself pretty modestly in the scheme of things.

    I make a very good salary that I’m very happy with.

    That’s pretty cool. But knowing the number would matter.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 个月前

      I find it intriguing that the people will scrutinize messaging platforms such as Telegram, and explain in detail how one should not entrust their messages’ encryption keys to these services. Yet, these same people seem unable to comprehend the concerns regarding Signal server having access to phone numbers of its users. The fact that these people are able to perceive potential vulnerabilities in one platform while remaining oblivious to similar concerns on another highlights that their arguments are more ideological than rational.

      • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 个月前

        For sure. I’m convinced signal is supported mainly for the same reason’s apple products are: it’s got a shiny user interface and it’s simple to use. That let’s them overlook all the privacy dangers behind the curtain.

        A gigantic US-based service based on phone-number(meaning real identity) identifiers.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 个月前

          Exactly, it takes a lot of credulity to believe that the US government would just altruistically develop and fund a messaging platform that genuinely respects privacy. I recall somebody was talking about how collecting metadata is basically equivalent to having a private investigator follow you around, and I think that’s a great analogy. People tend to fixate on the content of the conversations, but the reality is that knowing who talks to whom is just as valuable.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 个月前

      Maybe the US government (or even “deep state” or something) has realized that making everyone use insecure devices for easier surveillance is as smart as forbidding fire exits so that people would be easier to arrest.

      I haven’t heard too many bad things about Signal.

      Various dictatorships want to simply read correspondence because the social graphs producing actual value and keeping stability in our world, and also protecting their embezzled value stored abroad, are all abroad too, and they won’t hurt these. Some politicians in the west want to invade privacy for the same reason - what they embezzle is stored in ways unaffected by insecure communications in their own countries.

      But if you are part of some establishment, even if not well-meaning, you are interested to protect the system from outright erosion, meaning secure communications.

      Other than that, WhatsApp and FB Messenger are owned by Zuck and he’s become too big to tolerate, Telegram is an African brothel with no protection and plenty of diseases, and in general it’s all corporate around.

      Let’s please also remember that there are people of various views and interests in every organization and force.

    • refalo@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 个月前

      She has her hand in too many strategic places, unlike Telegram.

      employed at Google for 13 years

      speaker at the 2018 World Summit

      written for the American Civil Liberties Union

      advised the White House, the FCC, the FTC, the City of New York, the European Parliament, and many other governments and civil society organizations

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 个月前

      The very fact that there have never been any attempts in the west to stop Signal from operating says volumes in my opinion.

    • mipadaitu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 个月前

      Not that the action against Telegram is right, but there’s a big difference between what Signal and Telegram is doing.

      • Otter@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 个月前

        Would you have more info on the differences? I was wondering the same thing, but I don’t know enough about Telegram to compare

        • unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 个月前

          I’m no authority on it but from what I’ve read it seems to have more to do with the social features of telegram where lots of content is being shared, both legal and illegal. Signal doesn’t have channels that support hundreds of thousands of people at once, nor media hosting to match.

          • socsa@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 个月前

            Right, the French authorities are going to present evidence that this dude was aware of specific illegal activity and refuse to comply with a legal warrant involving said actively, making him guilty of obstruction at best, and possibly conspiracy. Signal complies with warrants, they just don’t have anyone’s keys. Telegram has everyone’s keys, and theoretically could turn them over but they refuse. That’s a huge difference from a legal perspective.

            • unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 个月前

              Thank you. I’m going to restate your explanation to be sure I’ve got it:

              • authorities want platforms to comply with legal requests
              • when Signal gets a subpoena, they open the key locker and show that it’s empty. They provide the metadata they can (sign up date and last seen date, full stop) and tell authorities they can’t do better.
              • when Telegram gets a subpoena, they open the key locker and show all the keys, then slam it shut in the face of the investigator, telling them to get bent.
              • conclusion: it’s easier to never have the keys in the first place than to tease the government with them
        • pimeys@lemmy.nauk.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 个月前

          Signal always responds to authorities when they ask for data, and they give them all they have: the day they registered, their phone number and the timestamp they last used the app.

          Telegram has unencrypted channels of drug dealing, and what I heard is a lot of illegal porn too. The authorities want information on certain users there and Telegram doesn’t comply. This is directly against the law Signal is not breaking, because they always send all the data they have to the law enforcement.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 个月前

            Telegram is a propaganda weapon in some sense, between two worldviews - one is “a good service doesn’t require trust, because they physically can’t sell you”, another is “a good service you can trust because they won’t sell you”. And Telegram helps the latter.

            So frankly - kill it with fire. Sadly I’m in Russia and everybody uses it here.

          • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 个月前

            while not wrong context matters, US social media companies also enable human, weapons, and drug trafficking. they play a role in a few genocides too.

            but the western regime does not care.

            • pimeys@lemmy.nauk.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 个月前

              But they give their data when the officials ask. That is all that matters. And I seriously hope none of us uses Telegram or WhatsApp to any discussions. Use Signal because that is so far pretty unbreakable.

              Telegram is already in the hands of that tiny Russian old man and WhatsApp is owned by a lizard.

      • istanbullu@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 个月前

        Telegram is available on F-Droid. Signal is not. Whatever is Signal doing, it’s pretty bad.

        • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 个月前

          The folks at F-Droid have said that Signal would certainly qualify, but Signal doesn’t want multiple channels out there. F-Droid is just honoring their wishes.

        • MerchantsOfMisery@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 个月前

          Assuming you’ve audited Signal, can you tell us what your findings were and why you think Signal must be up to something pretty bad? I’m very curious and would love to be enlightened by someone as knowledgeable as you.

          • poVoq@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 个月前

            I’ll leave it up to you to decide if that is bad or not, but one of the reasons the Signal app can’t be put unaltered on F-droid is because it loads in external dependencies from Google at run-time, which can also be altered by Google at will with any Android update.

            • MerchantsOfMisery@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 个月前

              How significant is it that the server code is open-source or not? It’s possible for Signal to publish their server code while running completely different software on their servers. The point of the client is being open source and audited on a regular basis by the community, which is why it doesn’t make sense to trust the server-side software.

              The entire point is that we don’t have to trust the sever at all. The client is open source and regularly audited by the community. As long as the client stays fully open source, everything’s fine. Also, the closed source dependencies are part of a spam reduction effort which IMO is well worth it. Prior to this, Signal had a spam problem and the client itself remains fully open source.

              Signal could have very well not even told people that they added a closed source dependency on Google to its servers and just lied by publishing fake server code that omits the closed source dependency., but instead they were very transparent about the spam problem. In terms of they “why?” regarding the closed source dependencies, their argument is that making it open source would almost immediately result in all anti-spam measures being thwarted. Frankly I’m inclined to agree and again, as long as the client is fully open source and regularly audited, the server code is irrelevant to user privacy/security.

              https://community.signalusers.org/t/spam-scam-on-signal/26665

              https://signal.org/blog/keeping-spam-off-signal/

              • poVoq@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 个月前

                The external Google dependencies I am talking about are loaded into the client not the server, so that’s an entirely different issue.

                • MerchantsOfMisery@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 个月前

                  Every app from the Play store requires GCM though, and Signal functions even if a user disables GCM. It pertains to a phone’s ability to notify a user of a new message. But again, users can disable GCM and the app itself will continue to work just fine.

                  For what it’s work, the APK on Signal’s website (obviously) doesn’t have the external Google dependencies. Personally, I really don’t see this as an issue at all.

        • toasteecup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 个月前

          Are you developing your opinions based on vibes or have you actually audited their software yourself (you are free to do so both client and federation server code)?

          If you audited it, have you produced an actual report with metrics and points of reference for your data points?

          • misaloun@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 个月前

            Doesn’t take away the fact that not being on F-droid is a huge issue and says a lot about how much they care about privacy and security.

              • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 个月前

                It’s actually sad, even though I’m a libertarian, tankies and in general marxists could have made a good input into our future. But if they can believe in Telegram being secure because of vibes and not even doing basic research, they’ve already lost.

                • toasteecup@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 个月前

                  Heeey I am also a libertarian, I just tend towards left libertarian. Back to the point of discussion, I find it difficult to ha e a meaningful conversation with the tankies or in general anyone from lemmy.ml . The discussions tend to lack any real data and feel entirely vibe based OR it’s apologist bullshit for Russia.

                  Like it’s cool if you like communism and have a philosophy based around why you think it’ll help humanity. I can politely disagree but still listen and discuss. It’s quite another to just be a complete dipshit and say “Ukraine had the invasion coming” (actual quote I’ve seen).

    • TCB13@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 个月前

      They won’t there’s no need. Their clients are garbage and they’re most likely backdoored anyways. This action against Telegram is only happening because they can’t get inside it, they can’t backdoor it nor corrupt anyone. If they were able to do that they wouldn’t be doing this.

      • ArchAengelus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 个月前

        No matter how good the protocol or client encryption, your privacy is only as good as your own physical security for the device in question.

        Given that if you lose your private key, there is no recovery, I would be surprised if there were real back doors in the clients. Maybe unintentional ways to leak data, but you can go look for yourself: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android

        They have one for each client.

        • TCB13@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 个月前

          If you don’t turn on the secret chat feature it wont be, yes. However if E2EE was the only deciding factor for a gov to go against an App then they woudln’t be going after Telegram. The fact that govts are going so hard at telegram simply proves that even when the company has access to all our chats they don’t actually provide them to said govts.

          I’m not saying telegram is good from a security perspective, I’m just saying that event without E2EE and all the modern wonders govts can’t still get in because the company doesn’t indulge their requests.

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 个月前

    Yeah, Signal is more than encrypted messaging it’s a metadata harvesting platform. It collects phone numbers of its users, which can be used to identify people making it a data collection tool that resides on a central server in the US. By cross-referencing these identities with data from other companies like Google or Meta, the government can create a comprehensive picture of people’s connections and affiliations.

    This allows identifying people of interest and building detailed graphs of their relationships. Signal may seem like an innocuous messaging app on the surface, but it cold easily play a crucial role in government data collection efforts.

    Also worth of note that it was originally funded by CIA cutout Open Technology Fund, part of Radio Free Asia. Its Chairwoman is Katherine Maher, who worked for NDI/NED: regime-change groups, and a member of Atlantic Council, WEF, US State Department Foreign Affairs Policy Board etc.

    • The Hobbyist@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 个月前

      This message is definitely giving all the vibes of a disinformation/misinformation attempt. There is no metadata to harvest from signal.

      Here is an example of all the extent of data that signal has on any given user: https://signal.org/bigbrother/cd-california-grand-jury/

      It involves phone number, account creation time and last connected time. That’s it. Nothing more.

      The cross referencing of data is just nonsense. Google and meta already have your phone number. Adding signal info to it adds absolutely zero information to them. They have it all already. They know nothing of who you talk with, which groups you are part of.

      The funding of Signal did involve public grants but that’s not anything bad. Many projects and nonprofits receive public money. It does not imply that there are backdoors or anything like that. And signal was purposefully designed so that no matter who owns and operates it, the messages stay hidden independently on the server infrastructure. They did the best possible to remove themselves from the chain of trust. Expert cryptographers and auditors trust signal. Don’t listen to this random ramble of an online stranger whose intentions are just to confuse you and make you doubt.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 个月前

        It’s fascinating that these kinds of trolls come out of the woodwork any time obvious problems with Signal are brought up.

        Phone numbers very obvious are metadata. If you think that cross referencing data is nonsense then you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about. It’s not about Google or Meta having your phone number, it’s about having a graph of people doing encrypted communication with each other over Signal. The graph of contacts is what’s valuable.

        Don’t listen to this random ramble of an online stranger whose intentions are just to confuse you and make you doubt.

        What you absolutely shouldn’t listen to are trolls who tell you to just trust that Signal is not abusing the data it’s collecting about you. The first rule of security is that it can’t be faith based.

        • The Hobbyist@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 个月前

          What are you talking about? you get a phone number from signal, and what will you be able to derive from it? there is no graph. signal does not hold any “relationships” information.

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 个月前

        Its the tankies.

        Honestly if they can recommend something better I’m all for it but I haven’t heard anything.

        • Majestic@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 个月前

          Take a look here for some alternatives:

          https://dessalines.github.io/essays/why_not_signal.html#good-alternatives

          • Matrix
          • XMPP
          • Briar
          • SimpleX

          Also just because there are no alternatives doesn’t mean your default position should be we just have to trust whatever exists now because it’s good enough. Or that we can’t criticize it ruthlessly, distrust it. Call it out and as a result of that build perhaps the desire for something better, a fix as it were.

          The evidence and history clearly points towards Signal being very suspicious and likely in bed with the feds. This is not conspiracy thinking. Conspiracy thinking is thinking that the country/empire that gave away old German engima machines whose code they’d cracked to developing countries without telling them they’d cracked it in the late 40s/early 50s, that went on to establish a crypto company just to subvert its encryption. That’s done everything Snowden revealed has in fact changed suddenly for the first time in half a century for no particular reason and not to its own benefit. That’s fanciful thinking. That’s a leap of logic away from the proven trends, the pattern of behavior, and indeed the incentivizes to continue using their dominant position to maintain dominance and power. They didn’t back down on the clipper chip because they just gave up and decided to let people have privacy and rights. They gave up on it because they found better ways of achieving the same results with plausible deniability.

          Also why is everything “tankies” with you people. Privacy advocates point out the obvious and suddenly it’s a communist conspiracy. LOL

          • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 个月前
            • Matrix and XMPP are not alternatives and are worse for privacy and security

            • Simplex Chat is actually is pretty sold but isn’t the most user friendly

            • Briar is very cool but its complexity makes it hard to use. It also has problems with real time communications

            • BeeDemocracy@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 个月前

              Matrix and XMPP are not alternatives and are worse for privacy and security

              XMPP is exactly as good or bad for privacy as the servers and clients you choose. It’s a protocol, not a service. Unlike Signal, which is a brand/app/service package.

                • BeeDemocracy@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 个月前

                  The protocol is worse for privacy

                  ‘Trust me bro’

                  The problem is, you’re comparing apples with orchards. Analogous would be: ‘email is worse for privacy than yahoomail’. Plus in this scenario yahoomail only lets you send emails to yahoomail addresses.

    • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 个月前

      Cross referenced you on the sister thread.

      People there positing that this is no correct. Granted their info appears to be signal “disclosed” to the feds as part of a court proceed what it collects, which is only apparently when you connect to the server.

      Doesnt answer the issue if they could collect your call logs though

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 个月前

        My reply from the other thread. People who claim this isn’t true aren’t being honest. The phone number is the key metadata. Meanwhile, nobody outside the people who are actually operating the server knows what it’s doing and what data it retains. Faith based approach to privacy is fundamentally wrong. Any data that the protocol leaks has to be assumed to be available to adversaries.

        Furthermore, companies can’t disclose if they are sharing data under warrant. This is why the whole concept of warrant canary exists. Last I checked Signal does not have one.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary

    • Preston Maness ☭@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 个月前

      Yeah, Signal is more than encrypted messaging it’s a metadata harvesting platform. It collects phone numbers of its users, which can be used to identify people making it a data collection tool that resides on a central server in the US. By cross-referencing these identities with data from other companies like Google or Meta, the government can create a comprehensive picture of people’s connections and affiliations.

      This allows identifying people of interest and building detailed graphs of their relationships. Signal may seem like an innocuous messaging app on the surface, but it cold easily play a crucial role in government data collection efforts.

      Strictly speaking, the social graph harvesting portion would be under the Google umbrella, as, IIRC, Signal relies on Google Play Services for delivering messages to recipients. Signal’s sealed sender and “allow sealed sender from anyone” options go part way to addressing this problem, but last I checked, neither of those options are enabled by default.

      However, sealed sender on its own isn’t helpful for preventing build-up of social graphs. Under normal circumstances, Google Play Services knows the IP address of the sending and receiving device, regardless of whether or not sealed sender is enabled. And we already know, thanks to Snowden, that the feds have been vacuuming up all of Google’s data for over a decade now. Under normal circumstances, Google/the feds/the NSA can make very educated guesses about who is talking to who.

      In order to avoid a build-up of social graphs, you need both the sealed sender feature and an anonymity overlay network, to make the IP addresses gathered not be tied back to the endpoints. You can do this. There is the Orbot app for Android which you can install, and have it route Signal app traffic through the Tor network, meaning that Google Play Services will see a sealed sender envelope emanating from the Tor Network, and have no (easy) way of linking that envelope back to a particular sender device.

      Under this regime, the most Google/the feds/the NSA can accumulate is that different users receive messages from unknown people at particular times (and if you’re willing to sacrifice low latency with something like the I2P network, then even the particular times go away). If Signal were to go all in on having client-side spam protection, then that too would add a layer of plausible deniability to recipients; any particular message received could well be spam. Hell, spam practically becomes a feature of the network at that point, muddying the social graph waters further.

      That Signal has

      1. Not made sealed sender and “allow sealed sender from anyone” the default, and
      2. Not incorporated anonymizing overlay routing via tor (or some other network like I2P) into the app itself, and
      3. Is still in operation in the heart of the U.S. empire

      tells me that the Feds/the NSA are content with the current status quo. They get to know the vast, vast majority of who is talking (privately) to who, in practically real time, along with copious details on the endpoint devices, should they deem tailored access operations/TAO a necessary addition to their surveillance to fully compromise the endpoints and get message info as well as metadata. And the handful of people that jump through the hoops of

      1. Enabling sealed sender
      2. Enabling “allow sealed sender from anyone”
      3. Routing app traffic over an anonymizing overlay network (and ideally having their recipients also do so)

      can instead be marked for more intensive human intelligence operations as needed.

      Finally, the requirement of a phone number makes the Fed’s/the NSA’s job much easier for getting an initial “fix” on recipients that they catch via attempts to surveil the anonymizing overlay network (as we know the NSA tries to). If they get even one envelope, they know which phone company to go knocking on to get info on where that number is, who it belongs to, etc.

      This too can be subverted by getting burner SIMs, but that is a difficult task. A task that could be obviated if Signal instead allowed anonymous sign-ups to its network.

      That Signal has pushed back hard on every attempt to remove the need for a phone number tells me that they have already been told by the Feds/the NSA that that is a red line, and that, should they drop that requirement, Signal’s days of being a cushy non-profit for petite bourgeois San Francisco cypherpunks would quickly come to an end.

      • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 个月前

        Anyone who has any experience with centralized databases, would be able to tell you how useless sealed sender is. With message recipients and timestamps, it’d be trivial to discover who the senders are.

        Also, signal has always had a cozy relationship with the US (radio free asia was it’s initial funder) . After yasha levine posted an article critical of signal a few years back, RFA even tried to do damage control at a privacy conference on signal s behalf:

        Libby Liu, president of Radio Free Asia stated:

        Our primary interest is to make sure the extended OTF network and the Internet Freedom community are not spooked by the [Yasha Levine’s] article (no pun intended). Fortunately all the major players in the community are together in Valencia this week - and report out from there indicates they remain comfortable with OTF/RFA.

        These are high-up US government employees trying to further spread signal.

        You can read more about this here.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 个月前

        Incidentally, this explains why Signal insists that the app has to be installed through the Play store as opposed to f-droid.

        • Preston Maness ☭@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 个月前

          Strictly speaking, you can download it directly from their website, but IIRC, the build will still default to trying to use Google Play Services, and only fall back to a different service if Google Play Services is not on the device. Signal really, really wants to give Google insight into who is messaging who.

  • istanbullu@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 个月前

    Signal’s hostility to third party clients is a huge red flag.

    They also refuse to distance themselves from Google’s app store.

    • ᗪᗩᗰᑎ@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 个月前

      That’s outdated information:

      Go forth and contribute, fork, or create your own.

      They also refuse to distance themselves from Google’s app store.

      This link has existed forever at this point if we count in internet years: https://signal.org/android/apk/ - getting an app directly from the developer with no middleman is about as distant as you can get from Google’s app store.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 个月前

      Do you hate Signal or do you hate the west? There legitimate reasons to not like Signal but calling them hostile toward third party clients is untrue. Last time I checked Signal wasn’t proprietary.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 个月前

        They have demonstrated history of asking third party clients to not use the signal name, and not use the signal network. The client that currently exists that do this do it against the wishes of the signal foundation

        • ᗪᗩᗰᑎ@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 个月前

          They have demonstrated history of asking third party clients to not use the signal name, and not use the signal network.

          The lead developer, nearly 10 years ago now, specifically asked LibreSignal to stop. A single event does not make a demonstrated history.

          The client that currently exists that do this do it against the wishes of the signal foundation

          If you have evidence to back this claim, I would like to see it so I can stop spreading misinformation.

          • jet@hackertalks.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 个月前

            In the Libra signal issue that you linked to, they made it clear they don’t want third-party clients talking to signal servers

            You’re free to use our source code for whatever you would like under the terms of the license, but you’re not entitled to use our name or the service that we run.

            If you think running servers is difficult and expensive (you’re right), ask yourself why you feel entitled for us to run them for your product.

            • ᗪᗩᗰᑎ@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 个月前

              He was specifically talking to that developer. The “You” and “You’re” in that quote was specifically targeted at the LibreSignal developer.

              I recall the gurk-rs developer specifically mentioned that his client reports to Signal’s servers as a non-official app. The Signal admins can see the client name and version - just like websites can tell what browser you’re using - and could easily block third party clients if they wanted to but they don’t.

              If Signal wanted to block third party clients, they would have blocked them already.

              • jet@hackertalks.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 个月前

                Moxie made it incredibly clear, he does not want third party is talking to the signal servers.

                Libra signal took him at his word and turn themselves off

                The other developers, like Molly, take a stronger road.

                Is signal currently banning third party clients? No. But they’ve made it clear they don’t like them. They didn’t actually ban Libra signal, they just asked them to stop. Could they ban the clients in the future? Yes

                • istanbullu@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 个月前

                  If you have a backdoored client, then you would naturally object to third party clients :)

  • sumguyonline@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 个月前

    Signal is compleletly compromised through spell check on 99% of OEM smart devices. Spell check can see what your typing word by word, and signal uses it. Feds are 100% using spell check to view your private messages. And by feds I mean every government on earth with a computer.

  • beSyl@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 个月前

    The thing I hate about signal is the UI. Everything looks way too big on my device. WhatsApp, for example, holds 2 more chats, and the messages themselves are tidier.

    This may seem like it’s not a big deal, but UI is absolutely crucial on order to get people to actually use the app. I moved a few people to signal but they just hated the way it looks. “seems like an app for old people, font too big”. I can see that. They moved back to insta/WhatsApp.

    I think some small and easy UI changes could make the app much better: just give us a “compact” mode.

    • where_am_i@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 个月前

      What part of non-profit and open-source do you not understand?

      Review the source, build it yourself, be happy. It uses well-known assymetric encryption algorithms. Not much your agency could really do here even if they harvest all the traffic from the server.

      • NegativeLookBehind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 个月前

        Was my fucking question about the integrity of the algorithms they use, or was it about who’s been funding the product? Because a quick web search will show you that they did in fact fund it at one point.

        • where_am_i@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 个月前

          And so what? You could be an oil dictatorship prince and donate a billion to Signal. It’s not going to compromise it in any way that is not directly auditable.

          So, your fuckin question is misguided. You’re “only asking questions” while implying intent.

  • coolusername@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 个月前

    0% chance that the feds don’t have Signal backdoors, otherwise Wired wouldn’t be promoting it. fyi everyone Proton is CIA. It’s modern cryptoAG.

    • ramenu@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 个月前

      Well, I disagree about Signal. Proton however, I agree is extremely shady and should be avoided at all costs.

      • JaggedRobotPubes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 个月前

        That’s pretty strong and I’ve never seen or heard anything like it before. If it’s true I’m betting the rest of Lemmy would like some details, too.

        • ramenu@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 个月前

          No support for Monero despite it being requested on uservoice 6 years ago. A Bitcoin wallet (seriously?) which is easily traceable. Important email metadata is also not zero access encrypted (i.e., subject headers, from/to headers) which leaks a substantial amount of information even if the body is encrypted. Not to mention they had clearnet redirects from their onion service a while back, something a lot of honeypots usually do.

          Even if it’s not a honeypot, you’re sure as hell not getting any privacy with Proton. That’s for sure.

          • ScreaminOctopus@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 个月前

            You can’t e2e the to and from headers in an email. that’s a problem with the protocol, not with proton. I’d assume the subject line falls into a similar bucket, because mailservers probably want to use it to filter spam

    • servobobo@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 个月前

      Centralized service with servers in the US, requires a phone number to create an account, and tech bros like it. “0% chance” 100% confirmed.