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

We can do better than Signal

icyphox.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 290 posts

Re: We can do better than Signal

#251

Post by h0p3 »

Arathorn wrote: post #94
creata wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matrix is merely federated, right? Why is it unlikely that a situation like email or the Internet will emerge, where the network still ends up massively centralized because that's just more convenient ?

We're proactively working on P2P matrix, as per https://matrix.org/blog/2020/06/02/introducing-p-2-p-matrix/ , to prevent this risk.

Thank you, btw. I know it's a hard problem, but there is no substitute for going P2P as far down as you can. To my understanding, there is profound moral merit in your work.

Re: We can do better than Signal

#252

Post by drummer »

We can certainly do better than Signal. The central point of attack is a problem. And now also the fact that they are using AWS, and AWS has demonstrated being willing to deplatform within 24 hours. However for now Signal is one of the best options we have.

Re: We can do better than Signal

#253

Post by distracted_boy »

OmniiTyler wrote: post #112

Hey icy, the issue you raise about Signal not being decentralized, I think, is a valid one. You should check out a decentralized messaging and social media app I have been working on - Omnii. Omnii allows each user to manage their encryption keys, and all data exists in a decentralized manner - only on endpoints (users' phones), and not on a backend. https://omnii.co is our website if you are interested.

The fact that you don’t offer a technical description of your application, and the fact that “Twisted Apps LLC“ does not have a credible online presence, does not inspire confidence in your security.

Re: We can do better than Signal

#254

Post by o-__-o »

meibo wrote: post #151
Caligatio wrote: post #29

I feel like Signal is held to a ridiculously high bar when it comes to anything. Is it perfect? No. But come on now; I see other threads on HN where people are debating/bashing their use of Intel SGX, really? Assuming you trust the client builds (or use a verified build) and verify the public key, all of these arguments go out the window with the exception of exposing your phone number. This situation seems like a pr…

Messages arriving out of order when you switch devices and missed notifications isn't supposed to be a high bar for a messenger. Telegram and WhatsApp get these things right, Signal is just lacking at the moment.

>when you switch devices

Signal requires and only supports a single mobile device, you can link multiple desktop clients to a mobile device. But one cannot have signal on multiple devices.

Re: We can do better than Signal

#255

Post by beardbound »

BillyTheKing wrote: post #52
Ericson2314 wrote: post #13

As I wrote in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25795575 - WhatsApp: Oh wait, SMS etc. is completely insecure - Signal: Oh wait, WhatsApp is structurally unable to be a force for privacy - Matrix: Oh wait, even benevolent centralization is an unnecessary risk It's not that worse is better, but the general public's imagination can only grow so fast. We need to coax people along. As such, I do think all 3 serve a pu…

In fairness, I think WhatsApp's value proposition is and was as little more than 'just' oh wait, sms etc. is completely insecure. I don't think the majority really cared about that (especially since end-to-end encryption was a later addition). I think most people primarily started using WhatsApp because a) it was (is) free b) cross-platform c) worked very reliably

A lot of people I knew that used WhatsApp used it because international text used to be prohibitively expensive and it was notoriously unreliable. So most of my friends used it in Europe. Also you can still use it if you aren't on cellular while traveling. Although I'm sure the cross-platform, freeness, and reliability were all pluses.

Re: We can do better than Signal

#256

Post by 29083011397778 »

creata wrote: post #99
Arathorn wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

your causality is wrong here; on day 1, matrix.org was 100% of the network, because there weren't any other servers. since then it's been decreasing steadily - at around 30% atm.

But when Matrix gains massive adoption from the mainstream, wouldn't you expect those people to primarily rush to matrix.org?

When Matrix enters the mainstream, it will be helped along by technical friends telling people about it. Hopefully friends technical enough that hosting their own server for their group isn't too big a deal.

Re: We can do better than Signal

#257

Post by pratio »

Maybe we can't for now and that's okay. There are so many solutions to choose from and the only thing that would make it popular would be if the people you want to chat with or on it. There's also a big issue with any of these platforms, MONEY. People want to text, share images and videos and audio. Want to have audio and video calls over data. A proper interface, cross device sync and they want it all fre e. Most people will use free software.

So you know maybe we just can't do better for now.

Re: We can do better than Signal

#258

Post by bilal4hmed »

Caligatio wrote: post #235
vbezhenar wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they're transparent, why don't they expose their commits to server code to the public?

This is a great example of what I'm talking about. Are you also commenting how you can't see the source of your phone's baseband, Google's services, your ISP's router firmware, WhatsApp's servers, Facebook's service's, etc? Because Signal's client is open source it's considered a unique-to-Signal downside that we don't have access to the server's source. I feel like some people would bring up the server source issue…

Well Signal has put itself as a high privacy option, we are open, check out our code. Well we can check the client code but we dont know what you are running on the server.

FB, Google etc never claimed to be open source with their infrastructure.

So if WhatsApp cant be trusted as to what happens on the server, right now neither can Signal.

Can Signal show that what they are running on the server is the same as whats on Github? Are we just trusting them because we have been trusting them all along?

Re: We can do better than Signal

#259

Post by bilal4hmed »

solstice wrote: post #124
Evidlo wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's untrue about that? There haven't been any commits to Signal-Server for almost a year. https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server

I'm not saying it's untrue. but that op is saying that something bad is happening at signal without saying what exactly they mean (hence my !!1!-ing) is what I find annoying and I would qualify that as FUD.

It is a bit odd that we don't know whats running on Signals server. We are just trusting them not to do wrong at the moment because they arent WhatsApp.

Re: We can do better than Signal

#260

Post by iudqnolq »

vbezhenar wrote: post #191
Caligatio wrote: post #29

I feel like Signal is held to a ridiculously high bar when it comes to anything. Is it perfect? No. But come on now; I see other threads on HN where people are debating/bashing their use of Intel SGX, really? Assuming you trust the client builds (or use a verified build) and verify the public key, all of these arguments go out the window with the exception of exposing your phone number. This situation seems like a pr…

If they're transparent, why don't they expose their commits to server code to the public?

Huh? I googled "signal server" and got https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server
Post reply on HN