241–250 of 387 posts
I thought the only client allowed on Signal was the official build provided by Signal itself? Does this mean Signal does officially allow another build (Telemark's TM SGNL) access to the Signal network?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It was incontrovertibly approved as it is only installable via MDM. Only if this his standard govt issued phone. It's also been shown they are also using their own personal phones. The could easily be using unapproved phones some random DOGE'er bought gave them with an MDM setup, without any real oversight.
> The could easily be using unapproved phones some random DOGE'er bought gave them with an MDM setup, without any real oversight. No. Even if you managed to get the app and push it to devices, you can't just use TM-SGNL without having an archiving account from Telemessage. Source: I manage this exact setup for several clients.
Why wouldn't the government (DOGE in this scenario) be able to get an archiving account?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you don't trust the people in your chat, they shouldn't be in your chat. I assure you, none of these people trust each other. Backstabbing is normal. They're also likely using it to talk to foreign counterparts. Again, most of whom they don't trust a bit. Encryption isn't just about "do I trust the recipient".
You are conflating levels of trust. The trust level required with Signal is, "do I trust the people in this chat not to share the specific communications I am sending to them with some other party whom I do not want to have a copy ". There are many many situations where this level of trust applies that "trust" in the general sense does not apply. It is a useful property. And if you don't have that level of trust, don…
That's the same level of trust really. Signal provides a guarantee that message bearer (i.e. Signal) can't see the contents, but end users may do whatever.
You can't really assume that counterparty's device isn't rooted by their company or they are themselves required by law to provide written transcripts to the archive at the end of each day. In fact, it's publicly known and mandated by law to do so for your counterparty that happens to be US government official.
The people who assume that they are talking with one of the government officials and expect records not to be kept are probably doing (borderline) illegal, like talking treason and bribes.
No, this is not a "nothing to hide argument", because those people aren't sending dickpics in their private capacity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you don't trust them, why are they in the chat in the first place? Journalist? Taliban negotiator? Ex-wife?
You are conflating "trust in all ways" with "trust to receive the communications in the specific chat they are party to". The former is not relevant.
My only theory is that they're pretending to have only 'Signal' so that when they want to they can allow hackers to "see" stuff they WANT to be seen. Like a disinformation honey pot designed to misdirect America's enemies. While they actually have a totally separate secret app that is secure and is developed by the NSA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What am I missing here? OK, say you're a bank. The SEC states you need to keep archives of every discussion your traders have with anyone at any time (I'm simplifying things but you get the point). You keep getting massive fines because traders were whatsapping about deals So now you've got several options - you can use MS Teams, which of course offers archival, compliance monitoring etc. But that means trusting MS…
Is it a coincidence that it reads almost exactly like SMERSH? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMERSH
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct, but nobody turns it on because it’s opt in, and even if you turn it on, 100% of your iMessages will still be escrowed in a form readable to Apple due to the fact that the other ends of your iMessage conversations won’t have ADP enabled because it’s off by default. Again, Apple gets to say “we have e2ee, any user who wants it can turn it on” and the FBI gets to read 100% of the texts in the country unimpeded.…
And yet, it's somehow so effective that it's illegal in the UK because it doesn't let the government read everyone's messages.
Still trying to grasp the idea of archiving messages from E2E encrypted communication system into a storage that entirely breaks the purpose of using something like Signal. It’s like encashing on the trust of Signal protocol, app while breaking its security model so that someone else can search through all messages. What am I missing here?
You want to talk to people who want to use Signal, but you yourself don't care about E2E
You trust Telemedia, but not Telegram, or Meta. And you want convenient archiving.
Still trying to grasp the idea of archiving messages from E2E encrypted communication system into a storage that entirely breaks the purpose of using something like Signal. It’s like encashing on the trust of Signal protocol, app while breaking its security model so that someone else can search through all messages. What am I missing here?
One of the most popular “e2ee” communication systems, iMessage, does exactly this each night when the iMessage user’s phone backs up its endpoint keys or its iMessage history to Apple in a non-e2ee fashion. This allows Apple (and the US intelligence community, including FBI/DHS) to surveil approximately 100% of all non-China iMessages in close to realtime (in the usual case where it’s set to backup cross-device iMess…