7 ms·

Signal's mission is to provide maximized privacy in a form the non-technical public can use. A messaging service filled with bots and spammers is not usable, a

by mmooss 4d ago

Signal's mission is to provide maximized privacy in a form the non-technical public can use. A messaging service filled with bots and spammers is not usable, and possibly not affordable to Signal (what proportion of resources would be spent on spam/bots). What is a more private, usable solution for filtering them out than using a phone number? Lots of security geeks want Signal to adopt practices unusable to the public. They've made clear that unsusable security is not in their mission.

traceroute66 4d ago
> What is a more private, usable solution for filtering them out than using a phone number? Since when is giving out your phone number a "more private" option ?
- tialaramex 4d ago
  You don't have to give out your phone number. You can mint an arbitrary "username" and give the username out to people.
  - traceroute66 4d ago
    > You don't have to give out your phone number. You can mint an arbitrary "username" and give the username out to people. You are deliberately missing the point. Signal are gatekeeping these new advanced security features behind a phone number wall (soon to become paywall if some posts here are to be believed).
- mmooss 4d ago
  If it's not, let us know a solution (to Signal's actual problem as stated in the GP) that is more private.
  - snackbroken 4d ago
    One possible solution is to only be able to contact someone if you have received an invitation code from them out of band. E.g. "scan this QR code to add me on signal". Such an invitation code should default to single-use but users should be allowed to generate standing invitations so that businesses and the like can print and post one in their store or whatever. Start getting spam from one of your standing invitations? Just revoke it and make a new one. Presumably the Signal folks can come up with more alternative solutions than the half baked one I came up with after thinking about it for a minute, they're clever cookies.
    - fn-mote 4d ago
      Welcome back to “key signing parties”. PGP never got enough adoption. At least Signal is simple enough that the (ahem) leaders of the US can (mostly) manage to use it.
      - chews 4d ago
        Leaders of the US use an Israeli backdoored version of Signal (TM-Signal) TeleMessage by Smarsh was used by DOD, CPB, and others for records retention reasons... also hacked to smithereens.
      - upofadown 4d ago
        Unfortunately, in an end to end encrypted messaging system, an identity is denoted by some sort of long number. That is an inescapable fact. Trusting a third party to correctly map, say, a phone number to a cryptographic identity number eventually results in the sort of attacks we have been seeing with phone oriented encrypted messengers recently like WhatsApp and Signal. The PGP people were doing the right thing when they were doing education in the form of key signing parties. That is something the user needs to know. Anonymous messengers have no real choice and have to use some sort of number for identity. See Briar, Session or Tox for examples. My comments on Signalgate 1.0: https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=em:sg https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=em:sg
        mmooss 3d ago
        > attacks we have been seeing with phone oriented encrypted messengers recently like WhatsApp and Signal Could you give an example of an actual attack of this kind on Signal? The 'Signalgate' event was someone mistakenly inviting the wrong person to a chat.
    - some_furry 4d ago
      Requiring manual key verification is a bad design that doesn't scale or benefit most people.
      - 4d ago
wolvoleo 4d ago
True they can make their choices but it also means I won't support them in any way. Or recommend them. I'd use something that's truly decentralised but signal is just another walled garden like WhatsApp. Just one that promises to behave better. But what's a promise worth these days? A decentralised network would mean a guarantee that they can't do anything bad. I'll take that over promises and good intentions any day. I don't care about the masses. If signing up for a matrix account is too annoying for them they don't really care about privacy anyway. After all it's the same they have to do for any online shop. Just create a username and password. Somehow it's not a problem for the masses if they wanna order a phone charger but for matrix it's suddenly 'too complicated'?
- fn-mote 4d ago
  > signal is just another walled garden like WhatsApp For me the difference is in the ownership. Who owns each. Which is BigCorp? That’s why I trust one more than the other.
  - wolvoleo 4d ago
    Ownership can change. That's the problem. It happened to WhatsApp itself! Meta bought a network with the userbase that was already too big to leave.
- tchalla 4d ago
  People like you who equate signal and WhatsApp are also responsible for not making any progress due to ideological stubbornness it’s something that I absolutely despise from a part of HN crowd here.
  - wolvoleo 4d ago
    Great, I'm happy to be a nail in the coffin of the signal advocacy. Remember how everyone jumped on Google when they promised to do no evil? Now they're one of the most abundant mass surveillance companies in the world and we can't move away because they're too big to fail. The same with WhatsApp. People jumped on it because it was good, then nobody left when meta bought it because all their friends were on it. Signal is one sale away from being evil too. They might not sell it but we've been conned so many times by big tech that I will only take technical guarantees, not promises that can be broken. We have to avoid getting locked in again. And really, lots of progress is made in real open communications. Matrix is getting more mature by the day. NATO uses it, the French government and several others. And the good thing is, you can always run your own server and connect to the hive. Nobody can tell you what to do, nobody can tell you to surveil your users like the EU is planning to do. We need something truly open. Not a WhatsApp light.
crossroadsguy 4d ago
> in a form the non-technical public can use. That happens when public uses it, en masse, in the first place. And as it is today the "public" has no reason/incentive in switching to it and that naturally keeps the "non-technical public" away from it. So who is this serving eventually? A very few, mostly "technical public", in complete contrast to what you have said. I suspect Signal's goal is something entirely else. For them it's just two things: 1. Some sort of shallow ideology (started with the founder and the flame kept alive by the later leaders who often come across ideological groupies; the last bit is a bit strong but whatever) 2. Executing based on that for the sake of executing that because they can What their intention is not: Signal ever becoming IM app of choice anywhere and possibly they might have their reasons for this. One of those reasons could be affordability as you have said it. Note: in case this wasn't clear, the moment you attach a "phone number" you make it inherently unsafe for most, like 99.353959353%, of "general non-technical public" to use Signal and remain really unidentifiable. Once they are identified - in most countries (and now even in places like USA it seems) only thing needed after that is being "picked up" and rest will be just sung even without a device. I mean it's so absurd to even not think about it is that it's ridiculous. So no, it is DEFINITELY not "non-technical public can use".

by mmooss 4d ago

traceroute66 4d ago

> What is a more private, usable solution for filtering them out than using a phone number? Since when is giving out your phone number a "more private" option ?

tialaramex 4d ago
You don't have to give out your phone number. You can mint an arbitrary "username" and give the username out to people.
- traceroute66 4d ago
  > You don't have to give out your phone number. You can mint an arbitrary "username" and give the username out to people. You are deliberately missing the point. Signal are gatekeeping these new advanced security features behind a phone number wall (soon to become paywall if some posts here are to be believed).
mmooss 4d ago
If it's not, let us know a solution (to Signal's actual problem as stated in the GP) that is more private.
- snackbroken 4d ago
  One possible solution is to only be able to contact someone if you have received an invitation code from them out of band. E.g. "scan this QR code to add me on signal". Such an invitation code should default to single-use but users should be allowed to generate standing invitations so that businesses and the like can print and post one in their store or whatever. Start getting spam from one of your standing invitations? Just revoke it and make a new one. Presumably the Signal folks can come up with more alternative solutions than the half baked one I came up with after thinking about it for a minute, they're clever cookies.
  - fn-mote 4d ago
    Welcome back to “key signing parties”. PGP never got enough adoption. At least Signal is simple enough that the (ahem) leaders of the US can (mostly) manage to use it.
    - chews 4d ago
      Leaders of the US use an Israeli backdoored version of Signal (TM-Signal) TeleMessage by Smarsh was used by DOD, CPB, and others for records retention reasons... also hacked to smithereens.
    - upofadown 4d ago
      Unfortunately, in an end to end encrypted messaging system, an identity is denoted by some sort of long number. That is an inescapable fact. Trusting a third party to correctly map, say, a phone number to a cryptographic identity number eventually results in the sort of attacks we have been seeing with phone oriented encrypted messengers recently like WhatsApp and Signal. The PGP people were doing the right thing when they were doing education in the form of key signing parties. That is something the user needs to know. Anonymous messengers have no real choice and have to use some sort of number for identity. See Briar, Session or Tox for examples. My comments on Signalgate 1.0: https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=em:sg https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=em:sg
      - mmooss 3d ago
        > attacks we have been seeing with phone oriented encrypted messengers recently like WhatsApp and Signal Could you give an example of an actual attack of this kind on Signal? The 'Signalgate' event was someone mistakenly inviting the wrong person to a chat.
  - some_furry 4d ago
    Requiring manual key verification is a bad design that doesn't scale or benefit most people.
    - 4d ago

wolvoleo 4d ago

True they can make their choices but it also means I won't support them in any way. Or recommend them. I'd use something that's truly decentralised but signal is just another walled garden like WhatsApp. Just one that promises to behave better. But what's a promise worth these days? A decentralised network would mean a guarantee that they can't do anything bad. I'll take that over promises and good intentions any day. I don't care about the masses. If signing up for a matrix account is too annoying for them they don't really care about privacy anyway. After all it's the same they have to do for any online shop. Just create a username and password. Somehow it's not a problem for the masses if they wanna order a phone charger but for matrix it's suddenly 'too complicated'?

fn-mote 4d ago
> signal is just another walled garden like WhatsApp For me the difference is in the ownership. Who owns each. Which is BigCorp? That’s why I trust one more than the other.
- wolvoleo 4d ago
  Ownership can change. That's the problem. It happened to WhatsApp itself! Meta bought a network with the userbase that was already too big to leave.
tchalla 4d ago
People like you who equate signal and WhatsApp are also responsible for not making any progress due to ideological stubbornness it’s something that I absolutely despise from a part of HN crowd here.
- wolvoleo 4d ago
  Great, I'm happy to be a nail in the coffin of the signal advocacy. Remember how everyone jumped on Google when they promised to do no evil? Now they're one of the most abundant mass surveillance companies in the world and we can't move away because they're too big to fail. The same with WhatsApp. People jumped on it because it was good, then nobody left when meta bought it because all their friends were on it. Signal is one sale away from being evil too. They might not sell it but we've been conned so many times by big tech that I will only take technical guarantees, not promises that can be broken. We have to avoid getting locked in again. And really, lots of progress is made in real open communications. Matrix is getting more mature by the day. NATO uses it, the French government and several others. And the good thing is, you can always run your own server and connect to the hive. Nobody can tell you what to do, nobody can tell you to surveil your users like the EU is planning to do. We need something truly open. Not a WhatsApp light.

crossroadsguy 4d ago

> in a form the non-technical public can use. That happens when public uses it, en masse, in the first place. And as it is today the "public" has no reason/incentive in switching to it and that naturally keeps the "non-technical public" away from it. So who is this serving eventually? A very few, mostly "technical public", in complete contrast to what you have said. I suspect Signal's goal is something entirely else. For them it's just two things: 1. Some sort of shallow ideology (started with the founder and the flame kept alive by the later leaders who often come across ideological groupies; the last bit is a bit strong but whatever) 2. Executing based on that for the sake of executing that because they can What their intention is not: Signal ever becoming IM app of choice anywhere and possibly they might have their reasons for this. One of those reasons could be affordability as you have said it. Note: in case this wasn't clear, the moment you attach a "phone number" you make it inherently unsafe for most, like 99.353959353%, of "general non-technical public" to use Signal and remain really unidentifiable. Once they are identified - in most countries (and now even in places like USA it seems) only thing needed after that is being "picked up" and rest will be just sung even without a device. I mean it's so absurd to even not think about it is that it's ridiculous. So no, it is DEFINITELY not "non-technical public can use".