81–90 of 301 posts
I love Signal and use it as much as I can, but I'm thinking of switching to Matrix solely because the desktop client is pretty bad. It won't show me messages until it syncs everything (so I can't even see old messages while things sync), and, what's worse, it skips messages, and multi-device just doesn't work. My laptop just shows "Message could not be decrypted" until I delete everything and reset. I'm not sure why…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would antifa result in anti-signal rhetoric? Genuine question because antifa is a mixed bag - there isn’t really any consensus on whether what they do is good or bad. Seems to be all over the damn place.
There is no consensus on wether being against fascism is good or bad? Being against fascism is not a group or organisation. It’s like calling bird watching an organisation. Yes, there are bird watching organisations, as there are antifa organisations, but neither bird watching nor antifa is an organisation.
Not always, but sometimes. They don’t seem to have a designated modus operandi.
The anti-Signal rhetoric has already started. News articles about Antifa specifically mention that they communicate via Signal. If Antifa is designated as a terrorist organization, then we'll see all the counter-terrorism tools brought to bear against them. If the state can't break Signal encryption, then you'll see renewed energy for anti-encryption / anti-privacy policies.
Why would antifa result in anti-signal rhetoric? Genuine question because antifa is a mixed bag - there isn’t really any consensus on whether what they do is good or bad. Seems to be all over the damn place.
The anti-Signal rhetoric has already started. News articles about Antifa specifically mention that they communicate via Signal. If Antifa is designated as a terrorist organization, then we'll see all the counter-terrorism tools brought to bear against them. If the state can't break Signal encryption, then you'll see renewed energy for anti-encryption / anti-privacy policies.
Why would antifa result in anti-signal rhetoric? Genuine question because antifa is a mixed bag - there isn’t really any consensus on whether what they do is good or bad. Seems to be all over the damn place.
[1] Plenty of sources, but first result for obvious keywords: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/antifa-group-trump-designate...
The anti-Signal rhetoric has already started. News articles about Antifa specifically mention that they communicate via Signal. If Antifa is designated as a terrorist organization, then we'll see all the counter-terrorism tools brought to bear against them. If the state can't break Signal encryption, then you'll see renewed energy for anti-encryption / anti-privacy policies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would antifa result in anti-signal rhetoric? Genuine question because antifa is a mixed bag - there isn’t really any consensus on whether what they do is good or bad. Seems to be all over the damn place.
There is no consensus on wether being against fascism is good or bad? Being against fascism is not a group or organisation. It’s like calling bird watching an organisation. Yes, there are bird watching organisations, as there are antifa organisations, but neither bird watching nor antifa is an organisation.
Edit: The comment I replied to originally asked "There is no consensus on wether being against fascism is good or bad?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't you have to keep paying for the sim, otherwise someone else might "steal" your account once your phone number gets reused?
Yes, and I'm tired of hearing "burner sim" thrown around as a solution whenever some company stupidly demands a phone number. Getting a burner sim is WAY more effort than I'm prepared to expend to sign up to some service. Stop asking for phone numbers! My mother has my phone number. A few of my closest friends and family have it. That's it. I have like 10 actual people on my phonebook. My phone provides immediate 24/…
Moxie should know better, but this blog post repeatedly boasts about privacy while not addressing this at all. Getting basic encryption into the hands of the masses is a laudable goal. But when the popular threat model changes (eg pocket computer compromise incident to arrest at a protest - an "evil raid" attack), you either need to adapt or you've become an attractive nuisance.
Specifically I'm envisioning an attack where say ten protestors are arrested and found to have a shared contact, and then the police turn that phone number into a real world identity and go after that person for organizing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
at least on Android you can sideload it
I recall reading something recently about how in a coming release, Android will disable sideloading. The sole permitted way to sideload will be to enable ADB and then install the app with adb install. Some techies will continue to do that, just like some people unlock the bootloader and install LineageOS on their device, but removing Signal from the Play Store would make it as good as dead for the general public. (Ev…
The ordinary non technical user has no idea of how to manually verify the sha256 checksum of a APK they've downloaded from the "official" software developer of an app.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If that’s the case doesn’t it matter even less that signal requires it since it’s already known anyway? Well, if you're operating on that premise, which is to say, a premise of complete and total resignation and surrender, then from that starting point of course you haven't lost anything. I don't think anybody is joining you though in agreeing that that's a legitimate starting place to analyze privacy concerns assoc…
This is such an uncharitable interpretation of what I was saying that it's basically a straw man. If you're required to use ID to get a SIM (as K2L8M11N2 stated in the parent comment I replied to), then what I was saying follows - that the person is already tied to the phone number anyway. In this context Signal revealing the only data they have (that a phone number signed up on X day) really doesn't matter or reveal…
>If you're required to use ID to get a SIM (as K2L8M11N2 stated in the parent comment I replied to), then what I was saying follows
Yes, and this is what I was responding to. You want that "if" to be taken for granted as an unchallenged starting premise to your entire argument. And that amounts to a massive privacy concession. And the fact that I'm challenging that premise, and bringing up the privacy concerns that are associated with that "if", that is the thing that you're describing as uncharitable. Even though you don't appear to dispute that it is indeed a privacy concession. And it only follows if you don't contemplate alternatives to using a phone number, which is what I took to be their point about the problems associated with a phone number.
>and more about what can be turned over if a user's device is compromised. In that context the name to number connection is more serious because they also have the content.
That's going true in any context where your number can be revealed, which is why it has unique disadvantages that usernames wouldn't have, under any conceivable hypothetical scenario. I'm glad that you benefited from their clarification but that struck me as a truism about the nature of phone numbers versus the nature of usernames.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that the earn it act will affect Signal - they aren't a publisher by any reasonable standard so they don't need the 230 exemption in the first place.
As I don't know much of the details of the legislation, or more importantly its references or modifications, can you elaborate more on what "they don't need the 230 exemption" means in the context that this act would likely not apply to them? Are you implying that the EARN IT act focuses on publishers of content and thus it less likely apply to Signal?
I think with sufficient funding for a legal department, Signal could work without the section 230 exemption. In practice, they don't have that money and would be forced out of business long before they were able to prove their case.