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

421–430 of 649 posts

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#421

Post by justinpombrio »

throw10920 wrote: post #171

> The most important reason for us to remove SMS support from Android is that plaintext SMS messages are inherently insecure. This is an incredibly bad reason to remove SMS support. Sure, the fact "plaintext SMS messages are inherently insecure" is true, but the implication is not "remove SMS support". Most people are motivated strongly by convenience. Signal is convenient because of its use as a drop-in replacement…

They already tried putting a small light grey "unlocked" icon on messages. If that doesn't scream "SMS", nothing does. All available options exhausted. Time to throw in the towel.

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#422

Post by autoexec »

causi wrote: post #162
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?")

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. I learned to stop trying to improve the technical lives of other people after Dropbox's decision to restrict free accou…

I'm happy to share the best information I have with others and most of them are glad that I do.

I had recommended signal to others, but thankfully I've already warned those same people against continuing to use Signal years ago. Nobody was mad at me for Signal's actions and changing your default SMS app isn't hard anyway.

I don't think you have to stop recommending things to people just because situations change. Hasn't everybody had some service or software they depended on go from great to shitty? It's just the nature of using someone else's stuff. At some point they get greedy or busy or decide to pivot into something different from what you want and you have to find something new. Isn't everyone used to that? Why would they blame you?

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#423

Post by tomcam »

Xelynega wrote: post #164
tomcam wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the naysayers has addressed your point (and those of TFA) rationally, as you have.

UX elements already exist to tell the user whether they're encrypted or not, removing the ability to send unencrypted shrinks their userbase while ensuring the apps adoption plummets. There, points addressed. Can we move on?

No, and thank you for asking. No one addressed what to me is the main point, which is that Signal is handling complaints from people who were being charged for SMS and didn't know that would happen. People these days are often not at all civil when dealing with support issues like this, and for that reason alone I could imagine I'd drop SMS.

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#424

Post by MikeKusold »

Melcupa wrote: post #418
MikeKusold wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's various levels of encryption that are acceptable depending on your risk level. I'm mainly concerned about SMS spoofing and mass surveillance. iMessage protects against that. The only way the government can read your messages is by serving Apple with a warrant to obtain your iCloud backup. If I had a lower risk tolerance, I would disable iCloud backups to improve my security.

I mean you followed Snowden right? I would argue that if you are relevant enough apple and sms are both equally easy to get for them. If we talk here about signal, I don't think the alternative should be iMessage but telegram etc.

Anecdotal evidence, but I've never had someone ask me to join Telegram.

In terms of encrypted messaging, the popularity in my friend group is:

1. iMessage

2. Signal

3. WhatsApp (only for talking to non-US people)

4. Matrix

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#425

Post by forgotmypw17 »

This is the type of occurrence which leads me to refer to most user-service relationships as non-consensual.

The user enters the relationship consensually, but the choices about the service's operations are done without the user's consent.

In this case, the user's only choices are to either abandon the service, or to put up with the changes they did not consent to.

In the future, with data portability being common and table stakes for most services, I think there will be a third option: seamless transition to a different service, preserving all data, metadata, relationships, and user accounts.

This is already possible with existing, established technology: private keys, hashing, and text files.

We have a bright future to look forward to, where this type of change will be perceived as old-fashioned and barbaric as surgery without anesthetic.

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#427

Post by kitkat_new »

NayamAmarshe wrote: post #334
jacooper wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correction, you dont need the privacy* Telegram is absolutely the worst when it comes to privacy, it has access to everything you do and say. If you want a master app, have a lot at matrix.org with bridges.

> Telegram is absolutely the worst when it comes to privacy Really? Telegram never said that they don't store your messages on cloud, they said that they do not sell your data or share it with third parties for profit. Telegram has received a very good score on PrivacySpy ( https://privacyspy.org ), in fact better than any other messaging app. Telegram is good from a regular privacy perspective unless your threat mod…

> Really?

Yes, really. You don't even argue against it.

> pp. Telegram is good from a regular privacy perspective unless your threat model involves fearing cloud convenience.

Telegram stores almost everything online without E2EE.

> Not only have Matrix servers been hacked twice but matrix also leaks metadata.

Even Signal leaks meta data.

> If you're seriously suggesting true anonymity (not consenting privacy) then Matrix is not a good option.

Out of Matrix, Telegram and Signal, Matrix is the best option. It is the only one not making you share your phone number giving you anonymity up to your IP address.

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#428

Post by toastedwedge »

mfuzzey wrote: post #419

Do people still use SMS? I haven't for many years, for sending (except for one time I wanted to test a modem driver SMS function). I regularly use Signal, Telegram and Google chat and used to use whatsapp until it was banned by my employer but the only time I ever use SMS is to receive automatic authorisation SMSs

My workplace uses SMS. There are also many people in the US who do not carry smartphones, either. So at least here it is still very much in use.

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#429

Post by kitkat_new »

jhasse wrote: post #202
jacooper wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correction, you dont need the privacy* Telegram is absolutely the worst when it comes to privacy, it has access to everything you do and say. If you want a master app, have a lot at matrix.org with bridges.

That's false: Telegram doesn't have access to secret chats.

it's not false

In reality almost no one bothers with secret chats (no syncing between devices, no backup and no group chat possible). Instead everything is stored online without E2E encryption, i.e. perfectly readable for the service provider.

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#430

Post by lucideer »

neogodless wrote: post #337
lucideer wrote: post #153

This is bizarre. If this were an in-depth announcement with a long and well-structured technical justification attached, I could understand. Though I suspect I'd likely disagree with the decision, I could probably accept it as a simple different of opinion if the arguments were evidently well-thought-through and considered. This blog-post is so lightweight. There's no technical analysis. There's barely any justificat…

Here's a (partially?) non-technical justification they shared on the Community forums. https://community.signalusers.org/t/signal-blog-removing-sms...

That post is an excellent justification. Makes perfect sense and it's hard to find fault with it.

Wonder why the blog post omitted all of that and focused on nonsense instead?

Post reply on HN