[deleted]
A Statement on Recent Events Between Signal and the Anti-Censorship Community
221–230 of 290 posts
Re: A Statement on Recent Events Between Signal and the Anti-Censorship Community
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does it need your phone number? Seems pretty weird for a “secure” program. And why does it use AWS? Isn’t that subject to all kinds of privacy risks including National Security Letters? Why isn’t Signal just a Free and open source, infrastructure-less p2p solution? Maybe the goal isn’t really security or privacy after all...
> Why does it need your phone number? Great question! It's a good way to make it easy for general-purpose users with limited technical expertise to adopt, use, and find one another. > Seems pretty weird for a “secure” program. You're right! It's definitely weird, but it's also understandable as a tradeoff in favor of less technically adept users. It's not one I'm in love with, but I think it makes sense. > And why do…
> Great question! It's a good way to make it easy for general-purpose users with limited technical expertise to adopt, use, and find one another.
Don’t patronize me you glib shill. There is no reason beyond tracking and surveillance to require a phone number. Rosenfeld’s admitted this already in a roundabout way and has claimed they’re “working on” not needing a phone number.
Any dissident could end up dead if they trust big tech with their phone number.
Re: A Statement on Recent Events Between Signal and the Anti-Censorship Community
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why does it need your phone number? Great question! It's a good way to make it easy for general-purpose users with limited technical expertise to adopt, use, and find one another. > Seems pretty weird for a “secure” program. You're right! It's definitely weird, but it's also understandable as a tradeoff in favor of less technically adept users. It's not one I'm in love with, but I think it makes sense. > And why do…
> Great question! It's a good way to make it easy for general-purpose users with limited technical expertise to adopt, use, and find one another. Don’t patronize me you glib shill. There is no reason beyond tracking and surveillance to require a phone number. Rosenfeld’s admitted this already in a roundabout way and has claimed they’re “working on” not needing a phone number. Any dissident could end up dead if they t…
Discoverability, familiarity, and usability are good reasons that many find convincing. I understand that some people might disagree.
Personal insults aren't called for. Please stop.
Re: A Statement on Recent Events Between Signal and the Anti-Censorship Community
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Great question! It's a good way to make it easy for general-purpose users with limited technical expertise to adopt, use, and find one another. Don’t patronize me you glib shill. There is no reason beyond tracking and surveillance to require a phone number. Rosenfeld’s admitted this already in a roundabout way and has claimed they’re “working on” not needing a phone number. Any dissident could end up dead if they t…
Discoverability, familiarity, and usability are good reasons that many find convincing. I understand that some people might disagree. Personal insults aren't called for. Please stop.
There's no reason to post in the fashion of a glib marketing department person if you're not. And I don't think ANYBODY finds requiring a phone number "because it's discoverable, familiar, usable" is convincing especially when considering that dissidents are apparently one of the major groups this is marketed to.
The whole thing smells funny, there's no reason to require a phone number other than Rosendfeld WANTS it.
Re: A Statement on Recent Events Between Signal and the Anti-Censorship Community
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course it does, unless you were replying to the wrong comment in the first place. What was it you did not see any evidence of?
I think that it was you who replied to the wrong comment. I did not see any evidence of them talking about any inappropriate behavior of their own nor did I see them saying anything inappropriate in the quote that you posted.
You have a weird definition of "inappropriate".
Re: A Statement on Recent Events Between Signal and the Anti-Censorship Community
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
Discoverability, familiarity, and usability are good reasons that many find convincing. I understand that some people might disagree. Personal insults aren't called for. Please stop.
There's no reason to post in the fashion of a glib marketing department person if you're not. And I don't think ANYBODY finds requiring a phone number "because it's discoverable, familiar, usable" is convincing especially when considering that dissidents are apparently one of the major groups this is marketed to. The whole thing smells funny, there's no reason to require a phone number other than Rosendfeld WANTS it.
The major group Signal wants to market to is normal people, and they've stated repeatedly that they optimize for that over maximum security with what they consider worse usability.
And even though I disagree with the focus on phone numbers and wish they'd prioritized a model that makes them optional, I do understand the network effect argument for including it. Kind of annoying that the alternatives that do it better have a hard time, but I also have to admit that it proves Moxies point to a degree.
Re: A Statement on Recent Events Between Signal and the Anti-Censorship Community
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
Discoverability, familiarity, and usability are good reasons that many find convincing. I understand that some people might disagree. Personal insults aren't called for. Please stop.
There's no reason to post in the fashion of a glib marketing department person if you're not. And I don't think ANYBODY finds requiring a phone number "because it's discoverable, familiar, usable" is convincing especially when considering that dissidents are apparently one of the major groups this is marketed to. The whole thing smells funny, there's no reason to require a phone number other than Rosendfeld WANTS it.
What is stopping someone from running signal on a dedicated burner if they're worried about it?
Different people have different threat models and I think asking for a phone number for the reasons posted above is acceptable for most people.
Re: A Statement on Recent Events Between Signal and the Anti-Censorship Community
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like the phone number is used mainly for matching you up to your contacts, and secondarily used for a first level of authentication. Signal has always encouraged independent verification of folks' public keys for sensitive communication. Whether or not AWS is risky, I don't think signal has any increased risk hosting their infrastructure on it vs. any other service. The whole point is that comms are end-to-e…
Seems like using a phone number as an account identifier is a huge risk to privacy. Has Rosenfeld admitted this? It’s just weird to require a phone number unless you’re talking about some big tech botnet like Facebook or Google.
The Rosenfeld stuff is weird, man.
Re: A Statement on Recent Events Between Signal and the Anti-Censorship Community
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no reason to post in the fashion of a glib marketing department person if you're not. And I don't think ANYBODY finds requiring a phone number "because it's discoverable, familiar, usable" is convincing especially when considering that dissidents are apparently one of the major groups this is marketed to. The whole thing smells funny, there's no reason to require a phone number other than Rosendfeld WANTS it.
The major group Signal wants to market to is normal people, and they've stated repeatedly that they optimize for that over maximum security with what they consider worse usability. And even though I disagree with the focus on phone numbers and wish they'd prioritized a model that makes them optional, I do understand the network effect argument for including it. Kind of annoying that the alternatives that do it better…
Normal people have no issues creating user handles on Reddit and Discord and Twitter. Again, the only reason to require a phone number is because Rosenfeld wants it.
Re: A Statement on Recent Events Between Signal and the Anti-Censorship Community
#230The answer from Moxie to these people: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-TLS-Proxy/pull/15#issuec... I think that says it all. I'm also a bit concerned that "security researchers" don't seem to understand the threat model. Signal has never claimed to be able to hide that it was being used. The TLS proxy is only meant to help circumvent censorship, not obfuscate its protocol. And indeed, as a temporary solution, it'…
"You were blocked because you know that we don't use GH for discussion, but came here anyway and started opening fake PRs so that you could post and harass other people on GH."
That is a very odd statement.