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

641–650 of 965 posts

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#641

Post by devit »

rbut wrote: post #633
devit wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume they only need to store it between the time it is sent and the time it is received by the recipient. Maybe the problem is that the Signal app doesn't eagerly download messages upon notification? They should start doing that given the money issues.

If you only have the phone app then yes they are instantly downloaded and removed from their servers. But if you have Desktop client(s) registered, then they need to hold onto those messages until you open your client(s). That is why they have a 30 day login limit on Desktop clients. If they didn't they'd potentially have to hold onto messages forever. https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Desktop/issues/4730 https://c…

That seems like a problem.

But the solution seems to be to have the desktop client request data from the phone.

In fact I'm not sure how it can possibly work otherwise (what if someone just uses their phone for years and then opens the desktop client for the first time ever? does that not show any old messages? seems a terrible design).

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#643

Post by bhtru »

DavidSJ wrote: post #558
bhtru wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, I always saw this as a deliberate feature aligned with what I first came across Signal for (sensitive communications between trusted parties that may need wiping at a moment's notice). If a journo reporting in a less than hospitable regime had their phone confiscated then they need not worry about their chat logs compromising them.

Sorry, how is this any safer for the journalist? If their phone is compromised in a way such that someone can login and control their Signal app, their chat logs are already compromised. I’m just saying there should be the ability to export those logs once you’ve logged in. But if they don’t want to provide that, then: 1) Why does the Android app support this? 2) They should warn users of this BEFORE holding their da…

Wouldn't it be more damaging if the authorities are able to sync and recover the chat logs (they had time wipe the logs)?

If they are able to take the journalist's sim card which is linked to their Signal account and then are able to recover the chat logs the journalist would be done for.

Of course the supposed journalist we're speaking of is already in a bad spot if they're interred. However, they might have plausible deniability with respect to their phone if there's no compromising chat logs to recover.

To your point about exporting, it would be nice. Ultimately, why can't we have both worlds by way of toggling the function?

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#644

Post by blep_ »

wkat4242 wrote: post #606
godelski wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yeah, I have an old checkbook that I've had since like 2010 because the only ones I've ever used are for random landlords. Otherwise it's literally easier to get a cashier's check, which you can (in America) do at any bank or grocery store. Note that some are free and some aren't, so check beforehand. I don't think these will ever really go away tbh

I think they will, America is just very traditional. Things tend to stick around for longer. The magstripe also lingers there even though we've got rid of it for years (though unfortunately our cards still have them in case we need to visit the US - I don't like having them because they are skimmable). Nobody would accept a check here anyway as they're not guaranteed. These days I pay with my watch or phone everywher…

Have you considered intentionally corrupting the magstripe data by running a strong magnet over it?

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#645

Post by squeaky-clean »

smolyeet wrote: post #608
olejorgenb wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this entail a 30% cut to Apple/Google?

Does it matter. 70% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

Because this isn't the only one way to donate, and if it were subject to the 30% cut, most people would want to know they could spend a couple extra hours steps for 30% additional impact on their donation.

Very few people are going "No apple pay? No donation."

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#647

Post by t0bia_s »

...we can rent server infrastructure from a variety of providers like Amazon AWS, Google Compute Engine, Microsoft Azure...

What if that provider stop Signal to access to their services from whatever reson? It's not very independent service then.

Decentralised, federated Matrix.org has more sense and looks more future-proof to me.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#648

Post by simonebrunozzi »

devit wrote: post #610

These costs seem absurd. For instance, 1.3$ million per year for storage??? Apparently, they have 40 million users, so 1 MB per user (seems reasonable for Signal) means 40TB. You can buy a 4TB SSD for $200, which means you need $2000 one-time for 1MB per user. How they get from $2000 to 1.3$ million is a mystery. As for SMS registration, if they are spending 6 million, maybe they should find some way of doing it for…

> How they get from $2000 to 1.3$ million is a mystery.

$1.3M seems excessive, but your calculation is really, really naive.

Storage for a business doesn't really compare to buying a 4TB SSD for your personal use.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#649

Post by warner25 »

pmlnr wrote: post #574
dheera wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just kill SMS entirely. SMS is old tech from the 1990s. We have better things now, like e-mail over LTE/5G, that work across countries, across devices (whoa!), across providers, across SIM cards (wow!) allow more than 140 characters (wow wow!), and allows easy-to-remember alphanumeric identifiers for user ids (wow wow wow is this the future!). I hate SMS confirmations, I don't want to use my phone number as a user…

> We have better things now, like e-mail. Funny how email, being from the 70s, is actually better.

I think we're all on the same page here, but the point is specifically "e-mail over LTE/5G..." (or really HTTPS over TCP/IP/LTE). I see SMS as this weird, independent, kluge of a data channel on the side, which was only cool when phones weren't yet fully interoperable with the Internet.

I feel the same way about the entire telephone system at this point.

Post reply on HN