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

Signal is having technical difficulties

status.signal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 750 posts

Re: Signal is having technical difficulties

#511

Post by amelius »

MrPatan wrote: post #474
CodeGlitch wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wish the EU would put up funds for open source software, like signal, it seems to be something they could get behind for the greater good. My previous job involved creating a graphical programming language for the generation of GPU shaders, which the EU partly funded. I knew it was going nowhere, and it made me slightly sad tax payer money was being used on something I knew, despite my best efforts, would no…

I know you mean well, and I understand the feeling, but how can you say in the same breath that the EU funds useless software and that you wish they funded more software? Why would the newly-funded software be the useful kind instead of the useless kind?

Because if they got more serious about it, they'd install committees to evaluate proposals, et cetera., like they do for scientific research proposals.

Re: Signal is having technical difficulties

#512

Post by InvertedRhodium »

eins1234 wrote: post #510

One thing on my wishlist for Signal that's curiously still missing is the lack of a Web app. On desktop at least, I'm generally of the position that messaging apps should need no capability outside of what's available in my browser (i.e. sending notifications), so when the option is available that's the one I tend to go for (usually have my commonly used ones sitting around in a pinned tab). Pretty much every chat ap…

Signal has a desktop application that works across all platforms. Not sure why it isn't a web application though.

Re: Signal is having technical difficulties

#513

Post by sedev »

whichquestion wrote: post #251
sedev wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using Telegram is a rational decision if you want a service that's good at fun conversations. Signal's value proposition is _secure conversations_ and it does that much better than other services. "Fun" is not part of Signal's value proposition. More people want/need fun conversations than need secure ones. Regardless of what people "should" want, Telegram serves people's mundane everyday needs materially better than…

I don’t believe fun conversations are mutually exclusive with secure communications. You can have fun conversations with them being secure from prying eyes.

Strongly agree with this. However, I also believe that there is no existing service that does both well.

Re: Signal is having technical difficulties

#514

Post by iak8god »

eitland wrote: post #413
didibus wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telegram is not a secure chat application though. It's more similar to Facebook Messenger. You're better off using WhatsApp over it if you care about security. Or obviously Signal. When it comes to Matrix, it's a little trickier. Riot, the most common Matrix client does E2E encryption on DMs and invite only rooms. What I'm not sure is what happens if you send a private message to someone who is using Matrix client th…

> Telegram is not a secure chat application though. Fun fact: I didn't even write that. The rest is not so much for you personally as for a number Signal fans: I get it, I get it: Signal is best . But seriously: do you Signal fans have to derail every conversation? Do you have to take a jab at every other messenger at every given opportunity? Or can we agree that there's room for more than one solution? Because physi…

> But seriously: do you Signal fans have to derail every conversation?

I don't really have a horse in this race, just a guy who was scrolling through these comments and was struck how rude and ridiculous this remark is.

You're in a discussion thread for an article about Signal. You're the one who brought up Telegram and now you're having a little fit and accusing Signal fans of "derail[ing] every conversation"? This conversation is about Signal. If you didn't want people comparing it to Telegram, why did you bring it up?

Re: Signal is having technical difficulties

#515

Post by UFOFlyer »

eins1234 wrote: post #510

One thing on my wishlist for Signal that's curiously still missing is the lack of a Web app. On desktop at least, I'm generally of the position that messaging apps should need no capability outside of what's available in my browser (i.e. sending notifications), so when the option is available that's the one I tend to go for (usually have my commonly used ones sitting around in a pinned tab). Pretty much every chat ap…

IIRC Signal doesn't have a web app for security reasons. With a iOS/Android/Desktop app, you can verify the checksum of the binary against what signal provides.

But with a web app you redownload the application everytime which means you'd have to recheck that checksum every time you use the app. I guess that WhatsApp, Discord, et al have decided that this is a reasonable risk. But the privacy oriented Signal team disagrees.

I don't think it's a prioritization issue, the desktop app is currently running via electron which means it's effectively a web app already.

Re: Signal is having technical difficulties

#516

Post by GRBurst »

GRBurst wrote: post #508

I'm using Signal from the early days on where a lot of stuff wasn't working properly. I try to comvince people for quite some time now and whenever there was like a privacy issue on WhatsApp or other messaging apps, I saw people discovering and moving to Signal. Sadly, whenever there was such an opportunities to shine, they ran into technical difficulties. As a result, many friends tell me on a different messaging ap…

I'd suggest that: Whenever we, the hacker news guys who care for privacy, recognize that there is an opportunity for a privacy concerned development team like Signal -> We send them an e-mail or similar.

Since often its really difficult to spot it yourself.

Re: Signal is having technical difficulties

#517

Post by thekyle »

m12k wrote: post #367
didibus wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a little confused because you brought up Telegram specifically. WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger offer the same level of security as Telegram. In fact, I think WhastApp is more secure since it does E2E encryption by default. It's true that Telegram is about "fun" and not security. I just wasn't sure if you tried to imply Telegram is like Signal with a focus on fun as well, or you just meant most people don't care…

Telegram has optional E2E encryption (as does WhatsApp) which puts it ahead of Facebook Messenger. Unlike FB Messenger and WhatsApp, the company behind Telegram so far doesn't have a history of selling your personal data. I'd say it's fairly competitive, though obviously not ahead of Signal

Facebook Messenger also has optional E2E encryption in a feature called Secret Conversations which is very similar to Telegram's Secret Chats. A big difference though is that Facebook uses the Signal protocol while Telegram rolled their own.

Re: Signal is having technical difficulties

#518

Post by GRBurst »

eins1234 wrote: post #510

One thing on my wishlist for Signal that's curiously still missing is the lack of a Web app. On desktop at least, I'm generally of the position that messaging apps should need no capability outside of what's available in my browser (i.e. sending notifications), so when the option is available that's the one I tend to go for (usually have my commonly used ones sitting around in a pinned tab). Pretty much every chat ap…

They have a desktop app that is working very well, much better than the WhatsApp web app.

Or do you have a different use case?

Re: Signal is having technical difficulties

#519

Post by sedev »

didibus wrote: post #203
sedev wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using Telegram is a rational decision if you want a service that's good at fun conversations. Signal's value proposition is _secure conversations_ and it does that much better than other services. "Fun" is not part of Signal's value proposition. More people want/need fun conversations than need secure ones. Regardless of what people "should" want, Telegram serves people's mundane everyday needs materially better than…

I'm a little confused because you brought up Telegram specifically. WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger offer the same level of security as Telegram. In fact, I think WhastApp is more secure since it does E2E encryption by default. It's true that Telegram is about "fun" and not security. I just wasn't sure if you tried to imply Telegram is like Signal with a focus on fun as well, or you just meant most people don't care…

Now that you mention it, I _did_ fail to explain why I brought up Telegram. My bad, thank you for calling me on that. I mentioned Telegram particularly because in my social circles, Telegram is number one by a long shot in terms of "people just want to be where their friends are and not feel left out." I should have actually said that, rather than jumping to the next part of the idea.

(I am not here to defend Telegram's portrayal of itself as a secure messaging service — Telegram is grotesquely bad on that axis)

Re: Signal is having technical difficulties

#520

Post by caturopath »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #507
caturopath wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think there is a limit to the amount of gift in cash or other assets you can make without triggering a federal gift tax of around 40%. AFAIK, this does not apply when giving to a charity. > I can’t speak for Acton. Or in any legal capacity, but if it were me, tax deductions to a non profit can be rife with complications because if he ever gets involved with signal as a board member or employee, it might rise ques…

https://pp-990.s3.amazonaws.com/12_2019_prefixes_82-86/82450... : form 990 of Signal Foundation. Source: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/824... Brian Acton is listed as Principal Officer/President You can’t donate to your own company and then claim it for a tax deduction.

Well, you CAN donate to your own company and claim it for a tax deduction, I do it all the time.

That being said, this basic point seems like it might explain the whole thing. I can believe that he cannot be the sole (or nearly sole) donor and have the company be a 501(c)(3) rather than a private foundation or similar.

Post reply on HN