481–490 of 501 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's good enough that Facebook, WhatsApp, and Skype use it for E2EE messages. Wait if it's the same why don't we just use Facebook, WhatsApp and Skype instead of Signal?
Why don't you go to the local casino to chat with friends? They serve the same beer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't have to be friends to turn a blind eye. If Dubai had to pick between letting some nobody foreign national living on their soil get squeezed by a foreign secret police, or pissing off the Russians, what do you think they would do? (This isn't a knock on Dubai specifically, substitute them for almost any non-NATO country in the world).
And you think the USA doesn't do such things? If so, that's quite naive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Signal is still a significant improvement in security and privacy over SMS, Telegram, Discord, X, Whatsapp... It achieved the level of privacy that solutions like PGP tried and mostly failed to achieve for decades. Being tied to a phone number was part of the convenience of their solution. Allowing for nicknames now, might improve on the metadata leakage problem slightly. I'm sure reactionists will immediately drop S…
> I'm sure reactionists will immediately drop Signal because Elon the great said they should Signal got a massive boost in popularity because "Elon the great" literally told people to "Use Signal".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Both services are relatively insecure because they require phone authentication. That hasn't been the case for Signal for some months: https://signal.org/blog/phone-number-privacy-usernames/ You still require a phone number for sign up for Signal, but your phone number isn't visible to anyone you chat with.
> That hasn't been the case for Signal for some months Wrong. Because: > You still require a phone number for sign up for Signal So, they have your phone number. What is displayed is irrelevant. If they have your phone number (which they do), they will have to disclose it for any subpoena/NSL, so they do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even if some of them are based out of Dubai now Not to mention there's not much reason to trust UAE any more than there is to trust Russia.
Yes, and?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which bits of this war scream “good judgement and opsec” to you? https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/04/world/europe/ukraine-russ... > Ukrainian artillery targets Russian soldiers by pinpointing their phone signals. Despite the deadly results, Russian troops keep defying a ban on cellphone use near the front.
It's not about ordinary soldiers. It's about special services agents contacting their "partisans" agents, while other side special services trying to catch them. They're supposed to apply best security possible in the given circumstances. If you claim that neither Russian, nor Ukrainian special services are competent, I'd disagree with you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and?
I just found the mention of the state confusing because surely this app is equally untrustworthy regardless of its origin. American companies can't be trusted either—they've long since indicated a willingness to work with law enforcement and intelligence. E2e encryption is the only meaningful answer.
As for E2E encryption, eh, this topic has been beaten to death many times. Its UX is difficult so many apps like WhatsApp and Telegram do UX tradeoffs, quite successfully so I'd say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you think the USA doesn't do such things? If so, that's quite naive.
Did I say that? Did I mention the USA at any point in this discussion? What a strange thing to add. I am not American btw.
Where Telegram's devs and business resides hardly matters IMO. If somebody truly wants to put them under their boot they'll find a way, and that goes for probably half the countries on this planet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Winning" would mean not having to comply with the subpoena...
The winning in this case was they had to fight to be allowed to release what they provided. As nice as it would be to not have to provide that information, Signal proved that the only information they have to give is largely useless to law enforcement.
Another thing that wasn't pointed out: Du Rove said "Signal messages have been exploited against them in US courts or media." This would be the same case for Telegram as well, if someone has your phone. I believe that Signal can have a lock on the client, and the database is encrypted. The other part that Du Rove conveniently left out: Signal went against the US courts and won [0]. When subpoenaed to give all user in…
> they gave them all that had: the unix timestamp of when the account was created, and the last date you connected to the signal service. I'm confused. Signal also has your phone number because they require it, that's the primary privacy criticism against Signal.