3 ms·
I feel like the metadata collection argument is overrated here. It's a nice promise, and it's not that I don't believe them, but at the end of the day it's just
by pfg 10y ago
I feel like the metadata collection argument is overrated here. It's a nice promise, and it's not that I don't believe them, but at the end of the day it's just that: a promise. We've got messengers with E2E crypto because we don't want to just take someone's word that messages won't be read/intercepted, so the same logic should be applied to metadata: Either the protocol guarantees that metadata cannot be collected, or we should assume that it's being done.
Signal being open source is still a very good argument in favour of it. It's also great that they're careful about not including features that could make it easy to shoot yourself in the foot (online backups). We can do without the whole "just trust them" dance.
- themartorana 10y agoI think this is an important point. The article says WhatsApp doesn't collect metadata as normal course, but it can and will where legally required. Then it says Signal doesn't collect metadata, and stops there. I'm pretty willing to bet they're just as governed by NSLs as WhatsApp, and if legally required, can and will collect said metadata and hand it over. The only way to not do so is to go the Lavabit route.