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

Default disappearing messages

signal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 187 posts

Re: Default disappearing messages

#91

Post by Symbiote »

hoseja wrote: post #82
andrepd wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're making a wrong comparison here. Disappearing messages is not akin to forcing the other party to take memory-suppressant drugs (wtf?), it's more akin to asking them not to record your conversation.

If you remember something in your brain, you have recorded it. Electronic records are only different in scale/capability and guaranteed perfect recall.

The scale and guaranteed perfect recall are not "only" different, they are fundamental differences.

I would find it odd if someone were writing down everything I said. I already find it quite strange when I write something (on Signal or similar), and the person responds with a quote-reply of something I said years ago. "But I thought you wanted to visit Moscow?" or even "I'm sure you said you wanted to visit Moscow" are quite different from "here's the message you sent on 2019-02-05 at 14:32 telling me you wanted to visit Moscow".

Re: Default disappearing messages

#93

Post by mrpotato »

Vinnl wrote: post #60
Rd6n6 wrote: post #3

The max timer is too short. 6 months would be a convenient value - enough time to reference the messages while they might be relevant, but also not floating around forever

I suppose that's why: > We’ve also added the ability to set custom timer durations on your conversations, so that some content can be gone in 60 seconds and others can exist for 18 minutes or 4 weeks.

I thought the same as you until I checked how it worked in the app. Maximum is 4 weeks, there is no higher option.

Re: Default disappearing messages

#94

Post by swiley »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #22

I dunno, I think being able to hoard your own data shouldn't be demonized or valorized? Fine with whatever the default is, but I feel like the subtext here is that Signal thinks people's phones are going to be increasingly compromised so this will be a more necessary, and the "remember the passing acoustic conversation" is just a way to put a less depressing spin on that.

>the subtext here is that Signal thinks people's phones are going to be increasingly compromised

Phones are compromised by default. E2EE doesn't matter if someone else owns both ends.

Re: Default disappearing messages

#95

Post by ajsnigrutin »

stavros wrote: post #55
vasiliys wrote: post #48

Persistent messages seem like the obvious better default. 99.9% of my conversations have no obscene secrets, but a solid 1% have information that might be search-worthy. Hangouts / gChat seemed to get this right - extremely fast search and an "off the record" function for when you can't switch to an ephemeral alternative (usually a phone call). I know HN has a higher proportion of the reasonably-paranoid EFF-loving p…

It's not about obscene secrets, I was just a different person at 18 than I am at 40. Having what I said back then persist forever serves no purpose. Same for things I said months ago, what's the use?

I mean... you can get cancelled now, when someone disagrees with you here, and starts going through all your old posts/messages/tweets, and finds something that was perfectly OK back then, but now the PC culture deems a cancellable-offence.

So yeah, I agree... having things disappear after a reasonable amount of time is a great feature. Sadly, most networks (eg. twitter, facebook,...) don't have this.

Re: Default disappearing messages

#96

Post by matttrotter »

swiley wrote: post #94
Ericson2314 wrote: post #22

I dunno, I think being able to hoard your own data shouldn't be demonized or valorized? Fine with whatever the default is, but I feel like the subtext here is that Signal thinks people's phones are going to be increasingly compromised so this will be a more necessary, and the "remember the passing acoustic conversation" is just a way to put a less depressing spin on that.

>the subtext here is that Signal thinks people's phones are going to be increasingly compromised Phones are compromised by default. E2EE doesn't matter if someone else owns both ends.

Yeah I see what you’re saying, but there will always be the tech equivalent of the back room whisper - a private and authentic conversation. The platform may change, but it will exist because there’s always a need for it. Now, Signal fills that need. In the future… tor on open source hardware? Something else?

Re: Default disappearing messages

#97

Post by riedel »

leppr wrote: post #52
mike_hock wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The default, if I'm reading the article correctly, is to not disappear messages. But that is exactly what the default should be and what's needed to thwart large-scale blanket surveillance of the whole population. If the mere fact that ephemeral messages are enabled raises a flag, that kind of defeats (part of) the purpose.

I don't reckon Signal disappearing messages have much to do with "large-scale blanket surveillance of the whole population". This seems more about reducing potentially incriminating evidence in the absence of blanket surveillance.

The problem is that all personal data is potentially incriminating and harmful if not tightly controlled. I am not thinking about actually people/governments trying to do bad. It is a matter of chance and false positives, that plainly increase with the amount of data. There is cases when it is totally legitimate for law enforcement to seize all communication. It happened to me once and it does not feel good if all your communication is seized and searched. You give away personal information of so many individuals. Actually one should in those cases inform everyone about such information 'leak'. Alternatively having a red button that deletes/hides all your data, would also not look all to wise and it will put further stress on you in such a situation, in which you know that most probably everything will turn out well for you. Even if not giving away third party information would be the ethically thing to do , you will not likely do so even if the claims against you are not justifiable. So better delete your conversations and reduce your footprint. This is also good for email. Everyone should just do what we expect from companies...

Re: Default disappearing messages

#98

Post by skinkestek »

skinkestek wrote: post #86
lmm wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Throwing away threat models and the meaning of secure and encrypted just to be able to define something that competes for attention as "not secure" and "not encrypted" (from other threads) isn't very high level, it is basic framing. It's basic, but it's valid. I was responding to all your "It doesn't matter if it is E2E-encrypted if xyz" points, which are faulty logic; if whether it's E2E-encrypted matters in your…

> It's basic, but it's valid. I wrote basic framing . It is a valid and effective marketing technique but not something you should rely on in a technical discussion. > if whether it's E2E-encrypted matters in your threat model, then whether it's E2E-encrypted still matters in your threat model even if other aspects of the system are secure. Then we agree :-) I've been communicating over email, irc and lots of other c…

Ok, so I had try one more time to look this up, and here is what Wikipedia says. (They also point to where it was written originally and an archive of the source.):

> WhatsApp was initially criticized for its lack of encryption, sending information as plaintext.[198] Encryption was first added in May 2012.[199][200][201] End-to-end encryption was only fully implemented in April 2016 after a two-year process.

from the "Security and Privacy" section of :https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp

Happy now?

Again: this wasn't thought to be a big deal back in 2009 and I don't want to beat them up over it.

The person I wrote to wrote:

> If message text was readable that would have been a much bigger deal.

For anyone who has read so far, keep in mind such rules only apply to Telegram ;-)

Re: Default disappearing messages

#99

Post by londons_explore »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #22

I dunno, I think being able to hoard your own data shouldn't be demonized or valorized? Fine with whatever the default is, but I feel like the subtext here is that Signal thinks people's phones are going to be increasingly compromised so this will be a more necessary, and the "remember the passing acoustic conversation" is just a way to put a less depressing spin on that.

Disappearing messages by default could further weaken social protections.

Police and authorities can have logs (either of everyone or high value targets) and those people won't have access to their own messages to defend themselves.

It even means chat conversations can be entirely fabricated by one side, and the other has no way to refute it.

Re: Default disappearing messages

#100

Post by stavros »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #95
stavros wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about obscene secrets, I was just a different person at 18 than I am at 40. Having what I said back then persist forever serves no purpose. Same for things I said months ago, what's the use?

I mean... you can get cancelled now, when someone disagrees with you here, and starts going through all your old posts/messages/tweets, and finds something that was perfectly OK back then, but now the PC culture deems a cancellable-offence. So yeah, I agree... having things disappear after a reasonable amount of time is a great feature. Sadly, most networks (eg. twitter, facebook,...) don't have this.

> Sadly, most networks (eg. twitter, facebook,...) don't have this.

That's why I use a utility called Shreddit and some custom scripts to delete all my reddit/Twitter/whatever posts except the latest N.

Post reply on HN