41–50 of 329 posts
I'd love to have more of my socializing happening on Signal. Anyone got a good way to convince the non-paranoid to use it?
Just explain what end to end encryption means. People are starting to get it and don’t want companies able to read their messages.
What some people care about is not giving all their private conversations to masculine energy zuck - but don't expect any major wins.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IME you say “Sorry I only use Signal” and either they change or you don’t get in contact with that person. If you change and abandon your principles were they really principles in the first place?
How do you tell that to them in the first place? You got someone's phone number. The person who gives it to you tells them that they use whatsapp. You can't even tell them "Sorry I only use Signal" unless you open whatsapp app.
It is not plainly stated in the article, but as far as I understand, the first step of one of the attacks is to take the smartphone off a dead soldier’s body.
It raises questions about smartphones being standard equipment for soldiers, but they do give every soldier an effective, powerful computing and communication platform (that they know without additional training).
The question is how to secure them, including against the risk described in the parent. That seems like a high risk to me I would expect someone is working on how to secure them enough that even Russian intelligence doesn't have an effective exploit.
The solutions may apply well to civilian privacy too, if they ever become more widespread. It wouldn't be the worst idea to secure Ukrainian civilian phones against Russian attackers.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
edit: I will not reply further. What I said would be true regardless of the economic policy or partisan identification of the administration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This has nothing to do with politics. Popping Signal is quaint because it's a channel, not at asset. You don't need to compromise the channel if you have alternate routes to acquire the assets. edit: I will not reply further. What I said would be true regardless of the economic policy or partisan identification of the administration.
``` The sitting US President is literally a Russian asset. He is directing his team to divide up a country that Russia invaded in a summit that is not including that country, and stealing a half trillion in their sovereign mineral wealth without their consent. Calling their president an incompetent dictator and claiming being invaded was somehow their fault. ```