Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Signal app downloads spike as US protesters seek message encryption

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–367 of 367 posts

Re: Signal app downloads spike as US protesters seek message encryption

#361

Post by CultOfSkaro »

thu2111 wrote: post #330
im3w1l wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That didn't stop [facebook] blocking people from forwarding links related to coronavirus. Source?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=facebook+whatsapp+covid+forwarding... Pick any version of the story. Or read their blog post: https://blog.whatsapp.com/Keeping-WhatsApp-Personal-and-Priv... How do they know a message is forwarded? The encryption is meant to make identical plaintexts encrypt to different ciphertexts, so obviously they must be leaking the forwarding status in unencrypted parts of the message. And why is an e…

There’s a counter added to the encrypted portion of metadata of the message. The receiving client increments the counter by +1 if it forwards it. At some point, some client receives a message that has the maximum amount of forwards and thus the option to forward it won’t be shown by that client. This is handled in-app. An old or modified client won’t do anything with it, you can try it. It’s not a server-side thing but embedded in the E2EE’d data.

Re: Signal app downloads spike as US protesters seek message encryption

#362

Post by CultOfSkaro »

thu2111 wrote: post #358
im3w1l wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see. Given this clarification, I would argue that your original claim was misleading.

OK. Where is the argument then? You've asserted, but not argued. Today, Signal is claiming their encryption means the only data they have to give to government is date of install and last use. In the past they also claimed WhatsApp uses the same cryptography as them, at least for messages. These two claims cannot both be true. If there's some incredibly subtle detail that means deliberately exposing forwarding metada…

They can both be true. Signal Protocol for message encryption is something different than Signal the official Signal Protocol client. ;) That’s where the difference lies and why the statement can be true: WhatsApp uses Signal Protocol for its encryption, but WhatsApp isn’t Signal.

Re: Signal app downloads spike as US protesters seek message encryption

#363

Post by CultOfSkaro »

jwr wrote: post #203
est31 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Signal DOES NOT get your full contact list The full contact list is uploaded to Signal servers by the phones. The only protection layer that users have is the questionable security of Intel's SGX. It's still much better than what WhatsApp is doing, just not a black and white situation. To add a point to your list: Signal does not have automatic cloud backup of messages, unlike WhatsApp. On WhatsApp, 30% of users ha…

Not the full contact list, just hashes. That was exactly my point: few people know about this.

Actually Signal is uploading contacts with their first and lastname to the cloud now. Or is planning to do so. Read their blog about that f-ing PIN feature. Its explained there. I hope they don’t go through with it, I absolutely do not wish to use some cloud; not even Signal’s. My data should be 100% local. And that they’re gonna push this without a back-up feature for iOS feels a bit like them raising their middle finger to us.

Re: Signal app downloads spike as US protesters seek message encryption

#364

Post by CultOfSkaro »

theshrike79 wrote: post #359
outadoc wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not encrypted by default afaik.

They're all encrypted, but only specifically created Secret Chats are end-to-end encrypted.

Encrypted in transit... But stored plain-text accessible in Telegram’s cloud. They store all your metadata, full contact list, all conversations, all media and attachments, etc. If you value your privacy, Telegram is the absolute worst and one of the most dangerous messengers out there. Telegram should never be recommended as a secure alternative. It’s insecure right to their core. Heck, even their secret chat crypto is a joke. Telegram should be avoided at all costs for private and/or sensitive communication. Even WhatsApp is wayyy more secure.

Re: Signal app downloads spike as US protesters seek message encryption

#365

Post by CultOfSkaro »

jwr wrote: post #164
AtHeartEngineer wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's my default and over a few years I've pretty much converted everyone in my life except my mom

Sadly, Signal neglects user experience, and as a result people around me all tend to migrate to WhatsApp. They don't care that they are uploading their entire contact list to Facebook — "death before inconvenience".

Actually WhatsApp only uploads numbers. Ironically, Signal is contemplating uploading your full address book to their cloud for “easy recovery”. Which is a nightmare if they follow through with it.

Re: Signal app downloads spike as US protesters seek message encryption

#366

Post by nickik »

0xy wrote: post #355
nickik wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By default its not e2e encrypted and if you want to use e2e you lose lots of capability. That is simply not acceptable in a modern messenger.

Speaking as someone who regularly uses private chats, what capability?

- Group Chat

- Multi Device

Seems to me that are some of the most useful things about modern chat.

Also, why not just use a chat app that is save by default. The whole concept of private chat is insane to me.

Re: Signal app downloads spike as US protesters seek message encryption

#367

Post by Loughla »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #349
Loughla wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, no, I am not exaggerating. In my run-ins with police, they had no clear suspect, so everyone was a suspect. In one case, they questioned me, and had me go through a polygraph test. They didn't inform me of my rights to an attorney, because I was not formally arrested. They also did all of this without legal representation or parents (I was 16). They did it just to be able to tell me that I failed, a…

They could very well have been lying to you about failing the polygraph test too. They are legally allowed to lie to you. Of course, they can arrest you even if you don't talk to them. It's ultimately up them whether to arrest you, not to you. You don't necessarily get out of getting arrested by not talking to them. (If they say you can get out of getting arrested by talking to them, they can be lying!). But you make…

They 100% were lying to me.

I spoke to a family friend who quit the police department I was dealing with over ethical concerns. He said that it was pretty standard practice, especially when dealing with a case they had zero suspects on. He said, "they'll bring you in, they'll tell you you failed, and they'll tell you that if you confess, they'll go easy on you because you're so young. It's not the results that matter on a polygraph, it's the answers you give. Don't lie, and don't incriminate yourself."

He was 100% correct. They brought me back to the station, into an interrogation room, and after about an hour of waiting, told me exactly what he said they would.

I lost all respect for law enforcement through that process.

Post reply on HN