11–20 of 45 posts
Signal is just as insecure because they can push any code they want to anyone they want to spy on.
What now? That's not "just as insecure", since Telegram can also "push any code they want to anyone they want to spy on," but they don't need to because your data is already plaintext on their servers.
Signal not being perfectly secure does not make it "just as insecure."
Signal is just as insecure because they can push any code they want to anyone they want to spy on.
> Signal is just as insecure because they can push any code they want to anyone they want to spy on. What now? That's not "just as insecure", since Telegram can also "push any code they want to anyone they want to spy on," but they don't need to because your data is already plaintext on their servers. Signal not being perfectly secure does not make it "just as insecure."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Signal is just as insecure because they can push any code they want to anyone they want to spy on. What now? That's not "just as insecure", since Telegram can also "push any code they want to anyone they want to spy on," but they don't need to because your data is already plaintext on their servers. Signal not being perfectly secure does not make it "just as insecure."
I mean, if you were at all serious about security you'd just not use it. So it's just as insecure.
To tell people that there is no advantage to use Signal instead of much less secure alternatives because your Area 51 security requirements aren't met is actively harmful and bad advice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, if you were at all serious about security you'd just not use it. So it's just as insecure.
This is a bizarre take. What's considered "serious security" depends on the needs of the person and the kind of info they're transmitting. To tell people that there is no advantage to use Signal instead of much less secure alternatives because your Area 51 security requirements aren't met is actively harmful and bad advice.
Whether Signal or Telegram, you rely completely on trust in the central third party for security.
The choice of whether to use Signal or Telegram should depend on which of these organizations you trust the most (their leadership, their internal employees, and their security from external infiltration), NOT based on what technology they use in the client & server.
But you simply shouldn't use either because real security is all about not having to trust anyone like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a bizarre take. What's considered "serious security" depends on the needs of the person and the kind of info they're transmitting. To tell people that there is no advantage to use Signal instead of much less secure alternatives because your Area 51 security requirements aren't met is actively harmful and bad advice.
LOL, "Area 51." Whether Signal or Telegram, you rely completely on trust in the central third party for security. The choice of whether to use Signal or Telegram should depend on which of these organizations you trust the most (their leadership, their internal employees, and their security from external infiltration), NOT based on what technology they use in the client & server. But you simply shouldn't use either be…
And that's why technology matters, because security is not binary. Very concrete example, someone uses Facebook Messenger, the police get the hands on their phone, arrest them for some chat content. Signal cannot do that, and you can verify they cannot. That's a real use case that people in particular in countries with oppressive governments run into at this very moment.
Give me Matrix protocol or death.
Of course he'd say that, having have a great many questionable decisions around Signal. Honestly I'm inclined to treat this as FUD until the same points are raised by someone with a more impartial (or at the very least, fair) expertise.
Signal is just as insecure because they can push any code they want to anyone they want to spy on.