141–150 of 288 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you articulate a _specific_ threat model under which this extension fails to protect against mass data collection by Google? Or is this idle speculation.
Google adds Google Analytics to their browser, to automatically report what a user does in Chrome apps, and "accidentally" your whole chat history ends up on Google’s servers? This is not an unrealistic example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's one device to one device (as stated elsewhere in this thread. Apparently, only Android+Chrome combo is supported for multi-device). Put differently, I can't register the same number to an iPad and iPhone simultaneously at this time and hope to communicate with someone. It apparently gets things all confused. I was doing some more testing and it also appears that I'm unable to call someone with a greyed out name…
Oh I see. That is indeed annoying. So I guess this bit from the desktop announcement is a stretch: "....all incoming and outgoing messages are displayed consistently on all your devices." I mean I guess if you ONLY have one phone and a desktop that would be true? And I guess if Signal only allows you to register those two things, it is TECHNICALLY true, in the sense that "all" <= 2
Since I'm not an Android user, I'm unable to confirm all > 2 scenarios. Someone should try and report back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a pretty big holiday wishlist. =) This is the world we live in: people do most of their communication on mobile devices running iOS or Android, use Chrome on the desktop, and expect contact discovery to be automatic in their social apps. The browser has won the desktop, iOS and Android have won mobile, and the velocity of the ecosystem is unlikely to make "distributed" communication mechanisms possible for som…
If we ever meet I'll buy you a beer for the year of the Linux desktop line. But honestly: I understand mobile support for iOS/Android only. I don't understand Chrome as a platform (FF isn't dead. And the biggest reason for that is that I fail to understand why that client needs to be 'web based' and then again not. A web app in a silo) Mobile numbers.. Why? I mean, if 90% of the population WANT mum to see that they u…
Since I loved the fact that I can run my own TextSecure server, I'm wondering why Signal does not run a similar model?
I'm curious which considerations went into this decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google adds Google Analytics to their browser, to automatically report what a user does in Chrome apps, and "accidentally" your whole chat history ends up on Google’s servers? This is not an unrealistic example.
last time I checked Google Analytics doesn't record anything like that kind of data.
"Accidentally" logging keys is possible, as Google can modify the content of the JS on request – for example, in case of being served an NSL, Google can be forced to modify the JS to log that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> go out of your way to use Signal With that mindset we will never get secure communications to the masses but will repeat the PGP dilemma again and again. UX is of utmost importance. We would still be on 99.99% HTTP websites if HTTPS required going out of one's way.
That's what the Cryptocat people said.
I'm assuming this works similarly to WhatsApp Web ( https://web.whatsapp.com/ )
And actually, earlier this year, WhatsApp started using the encrpytion protocol developed by the signal folks (Axolotl) to encrypt message data, Which is super cool. (I think group chats and images are still not encrypted, or something) I wonder if in the future Signal will focus on integrating their encryption into other existing chat systems like Facebook messenger, and put the Signal apps on the backburner.
Services like LINE also bragged about their secure chat feature, too [0] but honestly, without an active indication of whether their session is secured or not, it's fairly useless and I don't really like this "hide the complicated stuff" attitude that those services seems to be going toward...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what the Cryptocat people said.
Is it? It is also what Edward Snowden said.
So I think, if that was an attempt at a rebuttal, it was not a very effective one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The app is still in beta testing. I think this is their way to drum up support. Forces all the die-hards who want in to try and get some people interested. An app like this is only as useful as the number of people who use it.
Invite them to... not use it? That seems like a solid way to turn people off from using a service, not a way get them excited about it.