41–50 of 283 posts
There is utterly nothing the Swedish government can do to stop Signal except for pressuring app stores and/or ISP-level censorship. Preemptive surrender is extremely disappointing, especially for a non-profit - there isn’t even any revenue that can be ‘fined’ by the EU!
There is a reason why Free Software (as in freedom) was invented: To ensure that those who create the software do not overpower those who use the software. The idea, that companies or politicians can force the user's machine to work against it's owner, is wrong. And it is wrong, because to be a human in the 21st century means in most cases, that your digital devices and your digital interactions are a core part of wh…
You are hinting at something important here. Let me strengthen your point: to own an object means to subject it fully to your own will. If the object can act in a way that favors someone else's interests over yours, you do not own it. This is true of pretty much any device running proprietary software.
A litmus test: can you make your device lie to the manufacturer's servers? Regardless of the legality or morality of doing so.
However this article is really about something else: the vulnerability of centralized services in the face of government oppression. Signal only has the ability to log messages because it is a centralized service that controls both the client and the server. The benefits of E2EE is greatly reduced if the client and the server is controlled by the same entity (tomorrow Signal can push out an update that would send a plaintext backup to their servers, and you wouldn't know it until later). Moreover, the non-free distribution mechanisms on mobile phones (stores) limits a company's ability to resist.
> The Armed Forces, on the other hand, are negative and write in a letter to the government that the proposal cannot be realized "without introducing vulnerabilities and backdoors that can be exploited by third parties First time I am seeing an organization against this. Kudos to them for standing up.
As good as Signal is I mean, you will want something under your control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, only some claim to "remain committed to offering our users the highest level of security for their personal data" while turning off E2EE cloud storage for an entire country.
What else could they have done?
> The Armed Forces, on the other hand, are negative and write in a letter to the government that the proposal cannot be realized "without introducing vulnerabilities and backdoors that can be exploited by third parties First time I am seeing an organization against this. Kudos to them for standing up.
I question the use of an instant messaging service hosted in another country for your armed forces, is that a good idea, especially now? As good as Signal is I mean, you will want something under your control.
> This week, Brigadier General Mattias Hanson, the Swedish Armed Forces' CIO (Chief Information Officer), decided that calls and text messages that do not concern classified information should, as far as possible, be made using the Signal app. The decision aims to make it more difficult to intercept calls and messages sent via the telephone network.
https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/aktuellt/2025/02/forsvarsma...
Seems people were using SMS for those messages they are now advocating to use Signal for.
Also, seems they've done a review (obviously) but unclear if they had access to something internal from Signal to do the review, feels like they had to:
> The Signal application has been deemed by the Swedish Armed Forces to have sufficient security to make it difficult to intercept calls and messages.
There is a reason why Free Software (as in freedom) was invented: To ensure that those who create the software do not overpower those who use the software. The idea, that companies or politicians can force the user's machine to work against it's owner, is wrong. And it is wrong, because to be a human in the 21st century means in most cases, that your digital devices and your digital interactions are a core part of wh…
Having the source code to a printer driver available is a completely different thing than being dependent on a platform, because all your friends and relations are using it.
Personally, I'd only trust a governmental agency to provide such services, which makes the article we're discussing ironic at the least, or complicated.
It seems like a lot of these proposals are coming out of Europe—assuming I’m not mistaken (and I may well be), why is Europe cracking down so much on privacy?
It seems like a lot of these proposals are coming out of Europe—assuming I’m not mistaken (and I may well be), why is Europe cracking down so much on privacy?
Most of this is being done to address the increasing terrorism threat we now face on a daily basis. Freedoms really only work in societies where people broadly share the same values and cooperate, but European societies are fragmenting and increasingly becoming less safe and less tolerant. If we want to do something about this then restricting freedoms is probably going to be required to some extent.
Another theory I have is that this could just be a symptom of an older and more female voter base. As women become more politically active and as older generations make up a larger share of total voters if we assume these demographics are more safety orientated on average then perhaps we should assume that safety concerns will begin to trump the desire for freedom. It's just a theory though.