Live data from Hacker News

Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

signal.org

901–910 of 965 posts

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#901

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do not see any excess here. You need to pay to compete. What you mean with pay to compete ? The goal of Signal to exist is to offer a privacy oriented chat app. Non-profit companies serve a propose, and people not aligned with that, shouldn't be working there in the first place. If you join a non-profit to make money, you are doing it wrong.

So all the programmers who work there should live on thin air? I agree that ideally the management should not be there for profit, but come on, the salaries are not even that crazy. I suspect FAANG key employees in that area easily earn multiples of that.

> So all the programmers who work there should live on thin air?

We are talking about C*, Engineer Manager, getting almost 700k/year. Not developers.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#902
post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Surgery is not done on minors. Sadly, this is not true. See for example this paper on 'gender-affirming' mastectomies, where the cohort included girls as young as 12 years old: https://journals.lww.com/annalsplasticsurgery/Abstract/2022/... Also this article from Reuters on rates of 'gender-affirming treatment' in children, from health insurance data, which shows that girls as young as 13 are receiving 'top surgery…

Idk man, I think this shit should be between the trans person and their doctor. We already pierce the ears and rip the foreskin off babies, and minors can get boob jobs and nose jobs already. Minors get all manner of drugs prescribed. If a doctor thinks some treatment is appropriate for a kid, okay. If it turns out to be medical malpractice we have the court system for that. Also, I disagree that men in women’s bathr…

> Also, I disagree that men in women's bathrooms is inherently predatory. Frankly, this discriminates against fathers of young children because often one has to bring a daughter into the bathroom or change their infants diaper.

I don't agree with you on this, in almost all circumstances they should be using the bathroom appropriate for the sex of the adult, which in this case is the male one. If there genuinely is no baby changing facility available that isn't in the ladies' bathroom then for the welfare of the child an exception can be made, but the father needs to check with the women using this space first.

This scenario is very different to the males who feel entitled to use women's spaces whenever they please and for their own satisfaction, rather than to provide for their child as in your example.

> Also, the bathroom thing is super weird, like how are you gonna enforce this in a non imposing, non disregarding of boundary way?

All that's really being asked for is for males to understand that female spaces are not theirs, to voluntarily refrain from entering, and to acknowledge that women have the right to have violators expelled.

The problem is that far too many males truly cannot conceive of the idea of simply respecting the space and boundaries of women. It literally doesn't cross their minds, so they immediately jump to whether or not women can forcibly stop them. The belief seems to be that if a woman cannot enforce this, they may take anything they like from her with impunity.

Perhaps that's not the connotation you intended, at least not consciously, when you wrote 'how are you gonna enforce this'. But I believe this form of male entitlement is what this implies, even with the best of intentions.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#903

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was asking for a source so I could look further into this, do you have any?

Neither me nor GP said that it was started by Google. Just that it was adopted by them as a solution.

Adopted by Google yes, but since when would Google adopting a technology give them full control over the future of that technology? Surely the other industry members who started RCS also have a say?

And I would argue that the language used implies Google created RCS themselves (it was their idea): "RCS is Google's idea of a solution"

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#904
post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want one for just personal use; this works well: https://github.com/AsamK/signal-cli Just sign up with a Twilio number (using voice call) and you can make your own bot.

I know I could do these things, but the problem is (1) it's a cat and mouse game of trying to keep up with functionality they don't want to support and (2) means I'm not paying them for a service, which is the point of doing it. IMO Signal need to figure out what they sell to people with the money to say "yes, this service helps me make money" so they fulfill the big mission statement. That's true viability. Within t…

I find signald better. It also supports acting like a desktop client... so you can just add it to your account easily. signal-cli might do that also, but I stopped using it in favor of signald when I found that one.

But yeah, I hear you. It would be nice if it had a official bot interface where maybe all the bot's receipients have to be whitelisted so that it's easy to use for stuff like server monitoring but not easy to use for spamming.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#905

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious why you used an address that's associated with you. Choosing the address of a place like a park, which is a real address that has no mailbox or direct association with you, ought to be the default if you don't want to be spammed to hell and back.

You might want to receive a tax receipt.

I've usually been able to get that in email form.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#907
post #528
post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This idea that an equivalent level of talent to SV is readily available in Indiana or Costa Rica for cheaper pay is deeply flawed.

OP didn't mentioned to slash salaries just by half not by 75%. Most IT people in western countries in Europe are not making even 200k per year. Even in London is hard to get 120k unless you maybe working as a contractor. A lot of those SV talents are not american but migrated from europe or elsewhere - there are still talented people in EU who just simply don't want to move to USA these days even if salaries are at l…

You're both contradicting yourself and proving my point.

Eastern Europe. For a non-profit privacy focused company. You're joking right?

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#908

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Username registration is currently being tested: https://community.signalusers.org/t/public-username-testing-...

So this puts signal on par with telegram, not above? Am I missing something?

Telegram's encryption is opt-in which means most people don't use the encrypted chats at all.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#909
post #641
post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Yes if you open the desktop client after 30 days its de-linked and you lose all new messages. And yes its bad design and very annoying, but understandable given their storage limitations. Have a look at the links I posted.

Retrieving from the phone would be a better idea I agree.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#910
post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, how does 1 mb per user seem reasonable? I’m sending tons of videos, documents and pictures, probably beyond a gigabyte daily. Just one video is like 40Mb. 1Mb assumption seems absurd

It's not stored on the server, except perhaps transiently.

If I open an old chat, and press "play" on old video, and it's downloading before being played, where is it download from? Same for downloading a file.
Post reply on HN