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

Signal Foundation

signal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 298 posts

Re: Signal Foundation

#201

Post by tortasaur »

skrowl wrote: post #75
tptacek wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telegram isn't remotely similar to Signal. Telegram communications aren't encrypted by default, and Telegram group chat messages aren't encrypted at all .

This is 100% false. EVERYTHING that goes over the wire is encrypted, always, just like when you're on a TLS website such as your bank. Group chats aren't end-to-end encrypted, and 1 on 1 chats are only end-to-end encrypted if you make it a Secret Chat.

Did you really think they were talking about SSL in this context? Of course they meant E2E.

Re: Signal Foundation

#202

Post by ikawe »

jakebasile wrote: post #134
IMcPwn wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For #1, Multi device support already exists. I can put my phone on airplane mode and still send and receive messages just fine on my laptop

That's cool. When I tried it last it required my phone to be on just like WhatsApp. I'll check it out again. I still hope they use some of this cash to make a real iPad and Desktop app, though. I'd really love to use the service but those are deal breakers for me.

Signal Desktop has never worked that way.

After the initial linking process, Signal Desktop has always functioned independently of your phone being on.

Re: Signal Foundation

#203

Post by kbenson »

sneak wrote: post #183
jkarneges wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think users would prefer federated systems. Who wouldn't? Even though most people have probably never heard the word before, they almost certainly use and appreciate federated systems like phones and email. Do people want federation enough to have to take a principled stance in order to force change? Heck no. And that's the problem: there's no reasonable way for their desire to impact the producer side of the marke…

> I think users would prefer federated systems. Who wouldn't? Even though most people have probably never heard the word before, they almost certainly use and appreciate federated systems like phones and email. Except that they don't; they mostly use Facebook Messenger, iMessage, and Whatsapp. Those that do use email use gmail, which barely federates (most gmail users never see messages from my personal email address…

What we've seen isn't users showing how they feel about federated systems, it's users being forced into walled gardens as closed systems added support for open systems, but open systems could not reciprocate, and the market adjusted.

If your choice as a user is to buy an iPhone that can communicate with your Apple friends over imessage and Android friends over hangouts, or buy an android phone and not access anyone through imessage, there's an advantage to Apple there. Google just decided to level the playing field (if slightly) by privatizing the hangouts protocol, and we all lost out a bit because of it.

Federation isn't something most people even experienced throughout all that, so it's hard to think it was factored in, even a few times removed, from their decision.

Re: Signal Foundation

#204

Post by qplex »

windexh8er wrote: post #178
qplex wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their Android app at least is way too difficult to use. I tried it with my friend some time ago and we just couldn't figure out in a reasonable amount of time how to add each other etc. I consider both of us tech savvy and we have absolutely no trouble with other IM clients or more archaic stuff like IRC.

Difficult to use? I'm even more confused as there is literally nothing to do to "add" someone. As I stated our entire family uses Signal across Android, IOS and desktop. That age range in our entire family group is 20s to 70s and I happen to be the only user who would be considered tech savvy.

Yes.

We didn't have each others phone numbers in our contacts.

Manually adding by phone number didn't work.

At this point we just gave up.

I use prepaids because I travel a lot so my mobile numbers are just throwaways.

I'd rather not give _all_ of my contacts to an app anyway.

So there really should be a way to manage contacts inside the Signal client and add people via screen names or email addresses.

Re: Signal Foundation

#205

Post by Stanish »

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #157
zzzcpan wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet even the best of the best cryptographic protocols provide little to no value on very insecure systems like iphone and android. It's like bike shedding of security, where Moxi focuses on the things he can do but for the systems where it doesn't matter.

I find it odd that someone would say an iPhone is “very insecure” after the USG, of all players, very publicly couldn’t get into a model from right before the security design hardened , not to mention the also very public panic in the IC about losing access to intelligence due to mobile phone developments. That’s a strange position to tout with the underlying implication that PC platforms are better. Are you broadeni…

Ever ask yourself why they did this "very publicly"?

Re: Signal Foundation

#206

Post by sitepodmatt »

tomc1985 wrote: post #162
mtmail wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"When WhatsApp was acquired by Facebook for $19 billion, the popular messaging app had about 35 engineers and 450 million users." http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-f8-whatsapp-engineer...

35 still seems high to me

You forgot the /s

Re: Signal Foundation

#207

Post by pishpash »

UseStrict wrote: post #50
y03a wrote: post #27

Any reason Signal isn't available through F-Droid? It may be unjustified but I'm not a big fan of installing privacy conscious apps through Play. Edit: Wait, haven't installed anything yet, but I read the getting started guide. I have to sign up using a phone number? That throws all expectation of anonymity and thus privacy out the window.

I'm not sure of your assumption that lack of total anonymity implies no privacy. They are independently important concepts. You can have privacy (no knowledge of information shared) without anonymity.

That's not the point. Why doesn't Signal provide the option of using a pseudonym? The model is broken from the perspective of people who care about privacy.

Re: Signal Foundation

#210

Post by bmer »

oh_sigh wrote: post #182
cs702 wrote: post #8

This is freakin' awesome: A non-profit foundation with $50 million in the bank dedicated to providing usable encryption to the general public, with no other agenda other than the public good. Go read the blog post by Moxie and Brian Acton (who is joining Signal). Very exciting!

Morally, how does one weigh the implications of this, in that it will be easier for general citizens to use strong encryption, but also be easier for terrorists/ne'er-do-wells as well?

Simple. There are more "good people" (people who care about others lives', even if only in small ways) in this world, than "bad people" (people who don't care about others' lives). By a large margin.
Post reply on HN