111–120 of 649 posts
I feel like all these messaging applications eventually mess up somehow. The one I keep coming back to is Telegram.
The comments here are so bizarre to me. I think this must be a USA thing. I had no idea signal even supported SMS, nor do I know anybody who uses SMS
I for one welcome the change, because my phone does not have an SMS plan (data only) and the "send by SMS" is a bit confusing. A messaging app should have one clear behavior per interface. This was "maybe secure, maybe not". I have an SMS app for that (well, VoIP-sms, because I'm weird).
Can you say more about what's confusing about this for you?
This seems to be a "bug or feature" situation where the answer depends on the user profile. The ability for messages to leave the Signal app in plaintext SMS is a "feature" for users whose top needs include a single-app UX, and a "bug" for users whose top needs include an app that is foolproof E2EE (so users don't have to consciously pay attention to which conversations are Signal-native vs SMS). Maybe SMS support co…
Never used signal, so I don't know it's UI language. Couldn't they just put a red unlocked padlock symbol next to the send button, if the sent message is going to be over an insecure channel (SMS in this case)? Maybe they already had something like this, so sorry for my ignorance.
So this is now a lie. This decision absolutely goes against how users actually use the software. Tone deaf and insulting. More cases of Signal saying "we know better than you. You're using it wrong. Do what we say.
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 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.
I lost you there
The comments here are so bizarre to me. I think this must be a USA thing. I had no idea signal even supported SMS, nor do I know anybody who uses SMS
I found it useful to have all these messages in a single place, although this change probably won't inconvenience me too much. However, I don't see any benefit.
One bright side of this is that Android's (Google's) Messages app has been pushing hard on RCS (the intended successor to SMS) and by default now does auto-upgrade to end-to-end encryption with any other messages users. If you're using signal, you don't get that auto-upgrade, so for conversations with anyone using a "default" google phone setup you were actually getting less net security on your comms compared to usi…
Given that it's Google, are you sure they do true end to end encryption. I would be shocked if they don't have access to the contents of your messages.
The big loophole is:
* The messages can be forced to be sent unencrypted if one or other end of the connection doesn't have data connectivity.
* The conversation backups are cleartext, so if either you or the other party has backups enabled, the e2e encryption is kinda pointless.