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

831–840 of 965 posts

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#831

Post by jillesvangurp »

8organicbits wrote: post #781
jillesvangurp wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from the salaries, which I agree are a problem, I think there are a lot of architectural issues that are both costly and not so secure. > We use third-party services to send a registration code via SMS or voice call in order to verify that the person in possession of a given phone number actually intended to sign up for a Signal account. Simple solution, go distributed. 6M $ for that. Stop doing that. What do d…

Have you tried verifying your contacts? It's clunky, but I believe this is how signal handles the problem: https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007060632-Wh... Using signal without verifying contacts is like bit like using HTTPS without verifying certificates. It prevents passive monitoring.

Outsourcing identity to operators just moves the problem. And it adds a lot of privacy and security concerns. Besides, other platforms manage just fine without phone number based authentication (which is what this is).

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#833

Post by Lewton »

px43 wrote: post #746
android42 wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I for one will never donate to signal, and consider my $1000 (or $20k of never realized "fake" money, explained later) lost to mobilecoins to be my lifetime "donation" to them. Short timeline of events from my side: - Signal announces/endorses mobilecoin support, as their new and only cryptocurrency option - I figure I'll get on it early this time after missing out on Bitcoin, despite Signal only supporting this in t…

> I figure I'll get on it early this time after missing out on Bitcoin So you only aped in because you were hoping to get rich without doing any work, and then you fraudulently opened up an account on a shady ass centralized exchange when you knew you couldn't KYC, and got your pretend money stuck, and then when FTX fell over it turns out it was never really there. Cryptocurrencies are awesome. Greedy people who can'…

> when you knew you couldn't KYC

What? Did you actually read what you replied to?

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#834

Post by rglullis »

lemper wrote: post #827
rglullis wrote: post #803

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are creating an ad-hominem by thinking that I can not criticize Signal because I have a competing offer. And to add insult to injury, you seem to have a misconception of what Communick is. Communick is not "a chat program". Communick is a service provider, which promotes and works only with truly open protocols. There is no custom client or lock-in based feature that I have. This means that if you are my customer…

yes, it's an ad hominem. people need to know who are you and what incentives behind them. if you're from a competing provider, other will need to take that into account. also, if you want to peddle your stuff, make your own announcements or something.

I'm somewhat flattered that you think Communick is a "competing provider" to Signal. Or anything, really. Maybe I will add that to the "testimonials" section of the website along with other nice things I get to hear from my 8 customers.

Whether Communick exists or not, even if I close it down next week (because if we are being honest it is nothing but a money pit which I keep running out of spite and stubbornness, and unlike Signal I'm not panhandling for donations) my criticism of centralized messaging platforms would still stand: whether it's Signal, or WhatsApp, or FaceTime or Telegram... we should not be supporting any platform that centralizes all communications in one single place, no matter how "well intentioned" or even how "provably secure" it is.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#835

Post by adammarples »

nativeit wrote: post #727
halyconWays wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is particularly insulting because they make enough money to cover the actual costs of running Wikipedia (the site) in days if not hours, and could operate for years without any additional donations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32840097

https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2022-annu... Seems almost mundane, as if they’re running a very effective foundation that’s actively achieving their goals. See the recent Cambridge study that explored how their governance has been effective at promoting moderate discourse while suppressing misinformation and hateful content: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-s...

Seems off. They have 250 million in net asset and hosting costs 2 million a year while they spend 88 million on salaries and still beg for money each year?

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#836

Post by jillesvangurp »

jwestbury wrote: post #785
jillesvangurp wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from the salaries, which I agree are a problem, I think there are a lot of architectural issues that are both costly and not so secure. > We use third-party services to send a registration code via SMS or voice call in order to verify that the person in possession of a given phone number actually intended to sign up for a Signal account. Simple solution, go distributed. 6M $ for that. Stop doing that. What do d…

> which I agree are a problem Are they? These salaries are much lower than most tech competitors. I know we like to call out "high" salaries when a useful service is struggling - but they'll struggle even more if they can't retain good talent because their pay is too low. There's a reason tech skill in government is generally lower than that in industry, for instance.

Nonsense. Asking for donations as a millionaire (which is what these people are) is a bit awkward.

This only makes sense if you ignore the world outside the Bay area and assume it's a talentless wasteland. Bay area salaries are vastly inflated in terms of value for money.

There is lots of talent elsewhere of course. I live in Europe. Lots of smart people here. I think I personally know quite a few people that could do at least as good a job as Signal has at building a messenger app + platform. No offense, but this isn't exactly rocket science.

And of course the elephant in the room here is that money is running out because this organization has a cost problem. Inflated salaries, insane cost for things that they should arguably get rid off (like the SMS bills), etc. That's a leadership problem. They aren't even getting value for money despite those salaries.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#837

Post by prepend »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #770
Drblessing wrote: post #710

2022 Salaries for those interested: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/824... Compensation Key Employees and Officers Base Related Other Jim O'leary (Vp, Engineering) $666,909 $0 $33,343 Ehren Kret (Chief Technology Officer) $665,909 $0 $8,557 Aruna Harder (Chief Operating Officer) $444,606 $0 $20,500 Graeme Connell (Software Developer) $444,606 $0 $35,208 Greyson Parrelli (Software Developer) $…

Aside from the salaries, which I agree are a problem, I think there are a lot of architectural issues that are both costly and not so secure. > We use third-party services to send a registration code via SMS or voice call in order to verify that the person in possession of a given phone number actually intended to sign up for a Signal account. Simple solution, go distributed. 6M $ for that. Stop doing that. What do d…

The reason I don’t use signal much is this link to a phone number.

Both because sometimes I don’t have a phone number. And I don’t want participants to know my phone number.

I don’t get why they have this requirement as it’s not like having a phone number means anything significant. For me, I think privacy includes my ability to not reveal my identity to the network.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#838

Post by concordDance »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #461
mhh__ wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that including staff + trying to do new stuff or just the servers.

Why should Wikipedia do new stuff? Or rather, why is it okay for Wikipedia to lie to people to get funding for their new pet projects?

Stop conflating wikipedia and wikimedia.

Little of the new stuff is for wikipedia and what's there is of questionable value.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#839

Post by concordDance »

nativeit wrote: post #727
halyconWays wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is particularly insulting because they make enough money to cover the actual costs of running Wikipedia (the site) in days if not hours, and could operate for years without any additional donations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32840097

https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2022-annu... Seems almost mundane, as if they’re running a very effective foundation that’s actively achieving their goals. See the recent Cambridge study that explored how their governance has been effective at promoting moderate discourse while suppressing misinformation and hateful content: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-s...

Uh, the opening paragraph of that second leads reads to me like wikipedia effectively got ideologically captured and got rid of all editors who didn't agree.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#840

Post by Vinnl »

prepend wrote: post #837
jillesvangurp wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from the salaries, which I agree are a problem, I think there are a lot of architectural issues that are both costly and not so secure. > We use third-party services to send a registration code via SMS or voice call in order to verify that the person in possession of a given phone number actually intended to sign up for a Signal account. Simple solution, go distributed. 6M $ for that. Stop doing that. What do d…

The reason I don’t use signal much is this link to a phone number. Both because sometimes I don’t have a phone number. And I don’t want participants to know my phone number. I don’t get why they have this requirement as it’s not like having a phone number means anything significant. For me, I think privacy includes my ability to not reveal my identity to the network.

> And I don’t want participants to know my phone number.

They're currently in the testing phase of allowing phone numbers not be known by your conversation partners: https://community.signalusers.org/t/public-username-testing-...

Post reply on HN