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

Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

signal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 649 posts

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#91

Post by bobmaxup »

garciansmith wrote: post #57
dheera wrote: post #27

I support this decision, I don't use SMS and I'm in support of everything that kills SMS. Next step: Please stop using phone numbers as a user ID. I have lots of throwaway phone numbers, but many people don't want to leak their phone number to every single person they want to have an encrypted conversation with.

Yeah, I'll just tell the gas company, electric company, internet provider, my bank, my elderly neighbor who can barely use a phone and I taught how to text, every restaurant I order online from, the plumber I just texted literally an hour ago due to a pipe leaking to just... not use SMS. I'm sure they'll listen. I assume you live in a place where SMS isn't necessary? In the U.S. it is.

I think the parent was stating that it doesn't have to be that way, and that things could be better without SMS and 10DLC.

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#92

Post by arise »

dodgerdan wrote: post #66

SMS and security are simply incompatible. And either you fall into one of two groups 1. You know sms is insecure and this is a insecure method of communication 2. You think sms sent via signal is secure because it’s a “secure messenger”. It’s clear that HN users will fall into group 1, but the vast majority of people would fall into group 2. So for me this is an overall security win.

Signal has clear UI cues and redundant messaging telling you what actions are insecure.

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#94

Post by MonkeyMalarky »

unhammer wrote: post #73

That sucks. The data fee argument makes no sense – you could just have a setting or warning or something for those who live in places where you have to pay for sms (I know every setting introduces complexity, but I that's got to be nothing compared to the level of engineering needed for all those other fancy features in Signal).

It's completely backwards for me. When I'm out of data for a month, SMSs still work. I've had to press and hold the send button to revert to SMS on many occasions.

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#96

Post by eatwater123 »

dymk wrote: post #68
eatwater123 wrote: post #10

This is an awful decision. I've converted some friends and family to Signal over the past years (it took a while) and it is now their default messaging app on their phones. This is going to confuse them and is going to make it difficult for me to keep convincing them that Signal is the route to use. ("Why do I need 3 apps (Android Messages, Signal, Whatsapp) to talk to people?")

I dunno, all my friends use at least a handful of messaging apps (iMessage, FB messenger, Discord, Telegram, SMS). Sure people grumble about a new messaging app but the younger generation seems to not have an issue adopting new things.

Yeah, I can understand that; but I've brought over various older family members, and non-tech friends (as in people that wouldn't have ever heard the words Discord or Telegram before in their lives) to Signal. That's who this will impact most.

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#97

Post by andrepd »

eatwater123 wrote: post #10

This is an awful decision. I've converted some friends and family to Signal over the past years (it took a while) and it is now their default messaging app on their phones. This is going to confuse them and is going to make it difficult for me to keep convincing them that Signal is the route to use. ("Why do I need 3 apps (Android Messages, Signal, Whatsapp) to talk to people?")

Honestly I'm pretty critical of the Signal app design: from the crypto nonsense, to the removal of chat bubble colors (used to be each person had a color, pretty useful in group chats), to the copious amounts of whitespace that have been linearly increasing for years, to the fact that the design has to change and break familiarity every 6 months or the devs have a stroke.

But I actually like this decision. It makes things less confusing and accidental use of unsecure SMS impossible. The downside is if you still use SMS you have to keep 2 apps, back them up separately, etc.

> "Why do I need 3 apps (Android Messages, Signal, Whatsapp)"

"You need Signal to talk to people on Signal, WhatsApp to talk to people on WhatsApp, and Messages to talk to people on SMS." Seems more straightforward than "use WhatsApp to talk to people on WhatsApp and Signal to talk to people on Signal or SMS; just pay attention to the color of the send button".

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#98

Post by aabajian »

Alright, it's fine for a company to remove features, if they are honest about why they are doing so. It's obvious none of the reasons given are due to user complaints. The truth is, they are removing SMS because they don't own the SMS platform (e.g. it's not a walled-garden like WhatsApp). Would it kill them to just be honest? Yes, it's less secure, but no end-user is saying, "Please remove SMS as it's not secure."

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#99

Post by dodgerdan »

monetus wrote: post #75
dodgerdan wrote: post #66

SMS and security are simply incompatible. And either you fall into one of two groups 1. You know sms is insecure and this is a insecure method of communication 2. You think sms sent via signal is secure because it’s a “secure messenger”. It’s clear that HN users will fall into group 1, but the vast majority of people would fall into group 2. So for me this is an overall security win.

The network effect of signal not being a hub for SMS and e2ee will mean less people using e2ee, IMO.

A few years ago I would have agreed, but right now Signal is doing just fine taking users from WhatsApp (FB TOS changes + ads + social group analysis)and Telegram (sketchy non-e2ee, Russian owned, based in the middle east).
Post reply on HN