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

Authoritarianism Through Coding: Signal

oyd.org.tr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–39 of 39 posts

Re: Authoritarianism Through Coding: Signal

#31

Post by Freak_NL »

eqvinox wrote: post #19
Freak_NL wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even without federalization Signal the platform is decidedly unfree. It is hard-tied to either Android or IOS (the desktop version requires the app on a smartphone with one of those two OSes) and requires the user's mobile phone number as identifier. These issues should be fairly trivial to solve from a technical standpoint (decidedly not something Open Whisper Systems can't handle), but these restrictions still rema…

The argument against this is the same as with the parent post to yours: UX. Signal has made the decision to use the phone number as identifier, and that's part of the reason it works so well for novices. I totally agree with you; I would not have bound identities to phone numbers either. However, Signal is reaching a wide audience like little else has while still being more open than the other encrypted messengers. T…

The UX argument is simply not convincing at this point. Sure, for an MVP it seems a fair choice, but they are way past that stage of development. They could simply keep the mobile phone number as an option, and even default to it on mobile OSes, and the UX would hardly suffer.

Re: Authoritarianism Through Coding: Signal

#32

Post by johnchristopher »

There's a very vocal voice about how signal is bad and the other federated thing is better.

But signal has already accomplished its goal (easy crypto for everyone) while the other is undergoing soon a server transition, has released a new version of their android client that hasn't yet all of the features of the previous client, encrypted rooms can still receive unencrypted content and isn't e2e by default and when it is you need to cross verify every clients unless you can live with red messages about unknown sessions in the room, etc. And they have different goals anyway.

Now I am back to wiring the neighbourhood with cat 6 to set up our own Internet because 'hey isp authoritaranism'.

What dictatorship are we actually helping when using signal that has proven not to store any messages or files while the default usage and instalation of the federated one leave transferred files unencrypted on the server?

It's definitely a false sense of privacy.

Re: Authoritarianism Through Coding: Signal

#33

Post by zajio1am »

prepend wrote: post #11

I think authoritarianism is dangerous because of force. The first time I used IRC I thought the mod system was unjust. In one channel the mods decided to allow democratic selection of mods, new mods were elected and the vote was “rigged” by extra accounts. The channel devolved into chaos and the mods took back over. At a project level, authoritarianism is based on subject matter expertise and who started the project.…

> I think software works well with “benevolent dictatorships” as long as there’s no lock-in or requirement to use it.

Communication systems have implicit lock-in due to network efffects. That is why it is important to support federated systems only.

Re: Authoritarianism Through Coding: Signal

#34

Post by Quekid5 »

twic wrote: post #14
seisvelas wrote: post #6

Just two nitpicks: 1. Marlinspike is misspelled throughout the article as "Merlinspike" & 2. This article is super mamón. That's a word here in Mexico I'm not sure how to perfectly put into English, but here are some examples from the article: >Open Whisper Systems led by Moxie Merlinspike, who is behind Signal, is and was never behind freedom. >People died for freedom, they are still dying and struggling around the…

I might say the writer is over-egging the pudding.

Overselling the salami?

(I hope that's an actual euphemism. I love these sort of weirdling phrases.)

Re: Authoritarianism Through Coding: Signal

#35

Post by [deleted] »

Freak_NL wrote: post #10
harporoeder wrote: post #2

I find the non free dependencies and centralization as annoying as the next person interested in the P2P sphere but I think Signal and Moxie have legitimate reasoning for their actions. Signal is intended for consumption by every day people not security enthusiasts. Any complication or inconvenience jeopardizes this goal. Something like picking a server, choosing an implementation, exchanging identities, setting up a…

Even without federalization Signal the platform is decidedly unfree. It is hard-tied to either Android or IOS (the desktop version requires the app on a smartphone with one of those two OSes) and requires the user's mobile phone number as identifier. These issues should be fairly trivial to solve from a technical standpoint (decidedly not something Open Whisper Systems can't handle), but these restrictions still rema…

[deleted]

Re: Authoritarianism Through Coding: Signal

#36

Post by johnchristopher »

YesThatTom2 wrote: post #30

Shut up and code. Ok, if decentralized systems are harder but worth it: go write code. Prove you are right. Over the years I’ve kept a mental list of all the dudes that claim they could write better code than some existing major project. Recently I did a little “where are they now” experiment and they were all still working entry-level jobs and (surprise surprise!) never created that better system they promised. This…

I am interested in such a list. Would you share?

Re: Authoritarianism Through Coding: Signal

#37

Post by gtsop »

No this is wrong. The poster frames Moxie as the threat to our society, forgetting that the real threat in this instance is mass sureveilance and Moxie (even though he has given a very bad impression with his attitude) has only given us tools to defend ourselves against the real threat. You don't like his ways? Take his open source software and run your own. This post makes no sense at all but it was interesting only in the sense that it gave me some insight in the development of signal and it's direction that I don't really like. However, associating that with authoritarianism? Outrageous

Re: Authoritarianism Through Coding: Signal

#38

Post by [deleted] »

enkid wrote: post #22
seisvelas wrote: post #6

Just two nitpicks: 1. Marlinspike is misspelled throughout the article as "Merlinspike" & 2. This article is super mamón. That's a word here in Mexico I'm not sure how to perfectly put into English, but here are some examples from the article: >Open Whisper Systems led by Moxie Merlinspike, who is behind Signal, is and was never behind freedom. >People died for freedom, they are still dying and struggling around the…

I think the word you're looking for is hyperbole/hyperbolic?

[deleted]

Re: Authoritarianism Through Coding: Signal

#39

Post by prepend »

zajio1am wrote: post #33
prepend wrote: post #11

I think authoritarianism is dangerous because of force. The first time I used IRC I thought the mod system was unjust. In one channel the mods decided to allow democratic selection of mods, new mods were elected and the vote was “rigged” by extra accounts. The channel devolved into chaos and the mods took back over. At a project level, authoritarianism is based on subject matter expertise and who started the project.…

> I think software works well with “benevolent dictatorships” as long as there’s no lock-in or requirement to use it. Communication systems have implicit lock-in due to network efffects. That is why it is important to support federated systems only.

Yes, definitely. But signal is an optional person to person program. I think it’s pretty easy to switch, or even take the source and make something new.

Even with closed source stuff like Facebook, it seems dumb to claim they are authoritarian and try to change them. It’s their product, just leave.

Lego isn’t authoritarian because they don’t make sets and changes that I want. It’s their company and they make what they make.

Post reply on HN