Live data from Hacker News

Signal says it won’t compromise on encryption

theverge.com

321–330 of 336 posts

Re: Signal says it won’t compromise on encryption

#321
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also: - There is no way to back up your message history (with photos, etc). This could be done using their (annoyingly pushed to users) "PIN", but isn't. Few people realize that if your phone dies today, your history is GONE. From what I saw, once people do realize this, it's game over for Signal. WhatsApp is just easier, "everybody is there", and it does back up your history. EDIT: Yes, it's on iOS. Yes, I realize t…

Signal has backup on Android, and fairly fast image management, but it's lacking on iOS. That points to a lack of developer resources. What you call WhatsApp history is other people being able to read your messages. WhatsApp is violently agressive in demanding you use your phone and give access to your contacts. You can't use it without feeling violated.

> That points to a lack of developer resources.

No, that points to prioritization issues. Many other features were developed and added over the years, but backup was not. It's not an accident, it's a result of multiple decisions where backing up user data was not seen as important.

Re: Signal says it won’t compromise on encryption

#322
post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the wrong lens, it's a lens that authoritarian governments and their supporters ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs#China ) don't want people to use.

Interestingly, those push this sentiment the strongest, are also often those who deny others of having any sort of legitimate perspective, using methods that boil down to character assasination rather than argumentative refutation. It seems that such people want to monopolize on what constitutes the truth. That seems a bit... authoritarian to me?

I'm not calling to put him in the reeducation camp or a prison. Reputation is a mechanism of self-regulation in free societies, so it's the opposite of authoritarian.

There is nothing to refute, he's just being manipulative. Politics is "culture" + all "culture" is good and should be accepted without questioning => authoritarian governments are just as good as democratic ones and should not be judged. That's plain nonsense.

Re: Signal says it won’t compromise on encryption

#323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can y'all chill with calling every instance of a message being deleted censorship? I've heard everything from minecraft chat profanity filters to copyright infringement detection called "censorship", meanwhile there are systems filtering and changing SMS messages based on political sentiment and people living in fear of being arrested, tortured and executed for saying bad things about the ruling class. Call it what i…

The difference between an 'abuse filter' and a censorship mechanism is semantics. By classifying political speech or image hashes you don't like as "spam", you've effectively implemented a political censorship mechanism and just gave it a different name. This is also why many privacy and security advocates are against on-device CSAM scanning. By classifying hashes of memes shared among political opposition parties as…

Evidence?

Re: Signal says it won’t compromise on encryption

#324
post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, those push this sentiment the strongest, are also often those who deny others of having any sort of legitimate perspective, using methods that boil down to character assasination rather than argumentative refutation. It seems that such people want to monopolize on what constitutes the truth. That seems a bit... authoritarian to me?

I'm not calling to put him in the reeducation camp or a prison. Reputation is a mechanism of self-regulation in free societies, so it's the opposite of authoritarian. There is nothing to refute, he's just being manipulative. Politics is "culture" + all "culture" is good and should be accepted without questioning => authoritarian governments are just as good as democratic ones and should not be judged. That's plain no…

> Reputation is a mechanism of self-regulation in free societies, so it's the opposite of authoritarian.

This "reputation" you referred to is nothing more than showing that there are people who have yelled "look, he sides with the enemy!" Nothing in that article you linked is a substantial refutation of his points. Everything is based on attacking his character merely for associating with countries that certain people don't like.

You may recall that "guilt by association" is certainly not a feature that free societies ought to have.

> Politics is "culture" + all "culture" is good and should be accepted without questioning

That is not the point at all. The point is that political systems cannot be easily changed because culture is enduring, meaning we shouldn't be lured by the fantasy that we can overthrow some dictators and voila we have democracy and everyone lives happily ever after. This should be super-obvious if you look at attempts to drop western-style democracy in the middle east: places are now worse off than before.

Another point is that political systems are complex, partly due to tradition and culture, and they cannot be force-fitted to be ranked on an easy, feel-good "authoritarian vs democracy" scale. This means it's a better idea to deal with those systems by talking and engaging with them, and understanding their nuances and merits, rather than taking a forceful "only my perspective is right and everyone else is wrong" approach.

This message is far more nuanced and constructive than you give him credit for. Your approach, "destroy all whom we deem authoritarian; don't listen to them in any way", has empirically resulted in countless amount of suffering in the past few decades, and has created a large amount of resentment in the global south.

It also doesn't help that many who insist on the "authoritarian vs democracy" frame are also those who align with, or at least fail to distance from, US regime change foreign policy, which is known to overthrow democracies and install dictators as long as those dictators favor US interests, while at the same time spinning such efforts as "spreading democracy and fighting for freedom". At their best, such figures often hyper-focus on "democracy", but turn a blind eye towards countries' inability to develop and inability to solve poverty due to how weak they've become after democracy was installed. All this too has generated a large amount of resentment in the global south.

Re: Signal says it won’t compromise on encryption

#325
post #193
post #11

Requiring handing over encryption keys as a requirement to do business there sounds like a good way to sanction yourself from the modern world.

I mean, this is how the USA works. It is widely speculated that the USG will retaliate against Apple for shipping true end-to-end encryption software that does not enable surveillance unless they (Apple) do some sort of clientside scanning. This seems to indicate that Apple's 1A rights to publish software are being infringed. Presently all large/webscale messengers in the USA (iMessage, WhatsApp, etc) all have backdo…

[deleted]

Re: Signal says it won’t compromise on encryption

#326
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signal is a nonprofit though. They shouldn't be under pressure to create business.

Non profit but still against federation or anyone running an alternative client. Why?

You know perfectly why, as your comment history shows.

Re: Signal says it won’t compromise on encryption

#327
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this what Bill Barr and the Trump administration wanted, too? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-wi...

Every time a new Gov gets in it feels like they roll this crap out. Those in the top of the power tree really seem to dislike the idea that anyone not them can keep secrets from them. Its exhausting as it never seems to be a well thought out, technically or philosophically sound argument. Are we doomed to never have technically competent leadership?

> Are we doomed to never have technically competent leadership?

Arguably it has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with philosophy of government. It makes some sense that people in government optimize for government's needs and wouldn't it be great (from the government's perspective) if the government could have an eye in everything so it could try to be everywhere at once?

Of course that's antithetical to a free country, but from a pragmatic rather than principled view from the top it's not as apparent that the country _should_ be free, especially once the US changed from a federation (power largely in the hands of the states with the federal government mostly focused on legitimately cross-state issues) to a nation (power largely in the hands of the federal government)

Re: Signal says it won’t compromise on encryption

#328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I find it unbelievable that major governments are not already in possession of the private key for at least one of the 150+ root certificates pre-installed on my device.

This would be a lot of effort for very little reward. The problem is that those keys can't be used passively. Just knowing these keys achieves nothing (lay people often assume you could snoop TLS, but, that's not how it works with a CA root even in archaic SSL versions) The only useful thing you can do with those keys is make certificates (the thing the CA gets to do legitimately) but presumably you'd make bogus ones…

[deleted]

Re: Signal says it won’t compromise on encryption

#329
post #129

fucking lying is what they do! how come, if they do not share data with third parties, that a "breakin" at TWILIO would have any consequence on signal? the app store claims data is not shared with 3rd parties, yet they use twilio to "verify phonenumbers" how about verifing them yourself? to expensive...? so twilio does it for free for you? what the fishy fuck is going on here? sure they do mention verifying the numbe…

https://twilio.com/verify

and? is it a free service? .. no it's not.

what is your point?

Re: Signal says it won’t compromise on encryption

#330
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this what Bill Barr and the Trump administration wanted, too? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-wi...

Every time a new Gov gets in it feels like they roll this crap out. Those in the top of the power tree really seem to dislike the idea that anyone not them can keep secrets from them. Its exhausting as it never seems to be a well thought out, technically or philosophically sound argument. Are we doomed to never have technically competent leadership?

> Those in the top of the power tree really seem to dislike the idea that anyone not them can keep secrets from them.

Just so we're on the same page, the "top" are the people we elect and the others are bureaucrats, technocrats, and a "community" of spies. Is that correct?

-

This pattern can be understood from different povs. A point of view rarely discussed is this: democracies and secret services are incompatible when currents of power are maintained by secrets.

Why can't we do something along the line of zero knowledge protocols in e.g. open Senate hearings?

Is it truly impossible to have both full accountability and effective intelligence services?

Post reply on HN