Live data from Hacker News

Board Changes at Signal

mastodon.world

71–76 of 76 posts

Re: Board Changes at Signal

#71
post #50
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2020-2021 it seemed like 20-30% of my contacts were using signal as their SMS/MMS app of choice. Then they forced SMS users off the platform, giving some reasoning that SMS users don't understand which messages get encrypted, or something. I lost track of signal's usage and uninstalled it after it lost SMS support. At this point I don't know anyone still using Signal regularly anymore.

They removed SMS support because Google doesn't provide an RCS API, causing received RCS messages to fall on the floor. All carriers in the U.S. will default to RCS when messaging between Android phones these days.

> They removed SMS support because Google doesn't provide an RCS API, causing received RCS messages to fall on the floor. All carriers in the U.S. will default to RCS when messaging between Android phones these days.

That raises all sorts of interesting questions. Like how does some random person in some random part of the world using some random carrier know I'm using an Android phone today. Surely they don't.

Assuming they don't, how do they handle iOS not supporting RCS. iOS is over 50% of the phones in the USA. Dropping 50% of messages sent by Android phones is untenable. Whatever happens - that isn't it.

The next question is what happens if an RCS message arrives on a Android phone that doesn't have Google messages as it's registered SMS app. It would seem mightily unfriendly to just drop it on the floor if you have no one to pass it to. It seems far more likely it would just pop up in Google Messages.

But you can avoid all that if the sending carrier has some way of asking if the phone number they sending to supports receiving RCS or not. One way to do that is the RCS app registers with some central registry, and Google Messages only registers itself if it's the default messaging app, otherwise it doesn't. So you only get RCS messages if you are using Google Messages.

TL;DR: Google not publishing the RCS API is a red herring. It doesn't matter, just as Signal not publishing an API for sending messages using the Signal protocol doesn't matter.

If that is all true, then spokes people from Signal claiming RCS forces their hand was a best misleading. As it happens the other reasons they gave didn't look particularly convincing either. Which left me in the position of trusting them about as much as I trust Google. As Signal gave me no choice I now use Google Messages as my default SMS app. Everything is still seamlessly end-to-end encrypted if the other end supports RCS - in fact the feature sets of Messages and Signal are so similar it looks like they were copying from each other. But security wise it's a definite step backward from when Moxie was CEO.

Which brings to the final point - I can't see what any of this has to do with Moxie. It all happened when after he stepped down as CEO. Seems like this was some else's decision.

Re: Board Changes at Signal

#72
post #70
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never saw this anywhere until this comment. The letters "RCS" never appear anywhere in the blog post[0] where they announced they were removing SMS Signal support. Where did you hear this from? This would be a much more reasonable reason than the drivel the espoused in their blog post. [0]: https://www.signal.org/blog/sms-removal-android/

On this very website! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33258684

Thanks! Why did Signal not officially post any of that?! And why is it being posted by a seemingly random person? There isn't even a name at the end of the supposed message from Signal.

If this is the case, I wish Signal had provided this information somewhere in an official capacity, rather than some random persons HN post. Like a follow up blog post following the reaction that people had. This is extremely poor communication to what I would believe is a decent portion of their username: technically oriented persons. The reasons they give in their blog post are extremely flimsy.

Re: Board Changes at Signal

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crime is the perfectly sensible default assumption for cryptocurrency apps in 2023. Accusing people of anti-cryptocurrency bias is like saying someone has anti-forest-fire bias; there are certainly scenarios where such a bias could be unfair, but the burden of proof is on you, not the other guy.

Since I love playing Devil’s Advocate... I can recall specifically two kinds of crime with cryptocurrency: “pump and dump” pyramid schemes and money laundering, which is hiding particularly nasty crimes like human trafficking. I won’t deny these are terribly victimizing things (that would be truly advocating for the devil). On the other hand, there are people who don’t enjoy the banking infrastructure that Americans…

You're leaving off theft, fraud, tax evasion, and ransomware.

Re: Board Changes at Signal

#74

I see some comments saying they are happy moxie is out. I for one am saddened. I trusted signal in part due to his persona. And his in your face attitude towards that one company that provided software to law enforcement that claimed to hack signal.

Cellebrite[0] is the company in question. [0] https://signal.org/blog/cellebrite-vulnerabilities/

> By a truly unbelievable coincidence, I was recently out for a walk when I saw a small package fall off a truck ahead of me. As I got closer, the dull enterprise typeface slowly came into focus: Cellebrite.

Yeah, uh huh.

Good analysis tho

Re: Board Changes at Signal

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since I love playing Devil’s Advocate... I can recall specifically two kinds of crime with cryptocurrency: “pump and dump” pyramid schemes and money laundering, which is hiding particularly nasty crimes like human trafficking. I won’t deny these are terribly victimizing things (that would be truly advocating for the devil). On the other hand, there are people who don’t enjoy the banking infrastructure that Americans…

You're leaving off theft, fraud, tax evasion, and ransomware.

All of those fall under "money laundering" and I wouldn't say any of those are worse than human trafficking, which I did mention (ransomware that doesn't care whether it's targeting hospitals and other critical infrastructure has a good case). Does it refute the argument that there are these other crimes which I didn't specify?

Re: Board Changes at Signal

#76
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what he thinks Signal is now I suspect it would be some approximation of “no longer his”. I can understand your frustration but this kind of message is likely only to exacerbate his.

Don't impute motives to strangers on the internet. I have no frustration. I am requesting a statement from someone that has been very outspoken on many issues around secure, safe, private communication in the past and is in a better position than any of us to follow up on his advocacy. He has had a very strong effect on the ecosystem including explicitly denigrating non-centralized efforts like the Matrix ecosystem (…

One wonders if there was some kind of pressure exerted on him. That would explain the stepping down and the subsequent silence about his replacements. It looks like a classic bear hug.

I wouldn't go so far as to call Signal compromised - yet - but I will be keeping an eye out for increased mentions of Signal in DOJ indictment documents, just like I did for Dropbox after Condy Rice joined their board (after which there was indeed an increase in such mentions of Dropbox).

Post reply on HN