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

Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

signal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 965 posts

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#451

Post by Caligatio »

rglullis wrote: post #421
BlueTemplar wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not completely ? Their server seems to be open source too now (with the exception of the spam filter) ?

Can I operate my own Signal server and talk with people on the "main" one?

You're moving the goal post from "self-sovereignty" to supports federation with an infinite number of servers. Nothing is stopping you from compiling your own Signal server and modifying a Signal client to use your server.

Given that Signal is free as a service, supporting federation only increases their expenses.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#452

Post by Funes- »

P2P alternatives are less convenient (always on to deal with notifications, adding contacts typically requires extra steps, etcetera), but the difference in costs is abysmal. In any case, it's been years since I've tried to make my social circles move to any of those platforms (Briar, for example). It's a losing battle.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#453

Post by AnthonyMouse »

olejorgenb wrote: post #326
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd drop these features if possible, or give them to donors. They can't really do that, it deters adoption of something with a network effect. The real issue here is that direct connections have privacy implications (maybe you don't want the other party to know your IP address), so they relay everything. If they could solve that they could save a lot of money. For example, detect if the user is connected via a know…

Making it so that only one party need to have a pro account might help a bit

Still doesn't work. Any two people don't have a pro account and they stop using it in favor of a competitor, and then their other contacts use the competitor too. You can't charge for something WhatsApp has for free.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#455

Post by politelemon »

rany_ wrote: post #445
lencastre wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s beginning to sound like the 1 EUR/year that at some point WhatsApp wanted to charge and it seemed reasonable to me at the time. Signal is even better and even more so justified.

They used to "require" a subscription of 1$/year but it was not enforced. If you missed the deadline, nothing happened. It was basically the WinRAR model but for an online service.

That may have been an A/B testing of sorts then, because I was booted right away.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#456

Post by sneak »

heavyset_go wrote: post #411
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely reasonable but the ultra privacy-conscious/paranoid can't easily donate or pay privately.

Signal requires a real phone number to open an account, you are not anonymous to Signal.

Phone numbers can be obtained anonymously in many countries. I have several anonymous Signal accounts, each with their own anonymous phone number.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#457

Post by rvba »

I always wonder what is the level of safety of Signal fron state level actors. Signal uses telephone numbers as user IDs + sends those verification SMS. Also 50 employees? So how many are monitoring the infaratructure 24/7 (on a side note, a project with 50 employees is probably still better than those with thousands - what do those people even do).

If the data leaks somehow, telephone number as ID sounds very bad.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#458

Post by climb_stealth »

Canada wrote: post #88

Seriously consider setting up a recurring donation if you prefer Signal. They have delivered consistently over the years. I set the $20/month back when they introduced the option. I'm curious what the breakdown of donations is. I only have 1 contact with a $10/month and 1 with a $5/month badge. Of course there could be others not displaying the badge. Signal really needs 500,000 people giving $20/month and plus the r…

Same. I have been doing the recurring payment since they offered it. Even though I'm effectively only using it with my partner. But that is every day

It feels good supporting something worthwhile.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#459

Post by BlueTemplar »

YeBanKo wrote: post #267
m3kw9 wrote: post #240

They could use a free plus subscription model for really pro features, like “extra privacy”, “faster sending speed”, “create bigger group rooms”, these are bad features but you get it

As soon as there is “extra privacy” for a premium, I would ditch Signal immediately. It’s either provate and secure or it’s not. Certain things cannot be half measured.

Not having to rely on a phone number would be extra privacy.

They are stuck with SMS though because it's a costly... signal that prevents spam.

(Sounds like an opportunity ??)

But then this might solve the funding issue for them, but being tied to most payment systems would only somewhat improve the situation for the users.

I understand now why they dabbled with cryptocurrencies (Monero having proved that these can be anonymous short of having NSA levels of computing power ?). I haven't been keeping up, how did that work out ?

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#460

Post by sneak »

rezonant wrote: post #214
oarsinsync wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does the default Android messaging app do?

Google Messages, which is fast becoming the default Android messaging app across Android OEMs uses RCS when both participants support it and falls back to SMS when that is not the case. RCS is an open standard that any carrier/OS/messaging app can support, unlike iMessage, which is exclusive to iPhones.

RCS-the-open-standard is not end to end encrypted.
Post reply on HN