4 ms·

I think that this is relevant https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12880520 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12880520 I would recommend to read the article

I think that this is relevant https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12880520 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12880520 I would recommend to read the article first and then follow the protectionism in the comments later. The main claim of the article is that we need federation, as we do with the email (but imo we are loosing it). In addition, Signal shares a problem with email - information about your communication circle is not secure.

throwanem 10y ago
This is a classic example of making the perfect the enemy of the good.
- eveningcoffee 10y ago
  I disagree. These are valid points and dismissing them based on ignorance would be wrong. Instead we should discuss why these are not implemented and how could be proceed to implement them.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    That's not what the article you cite is saying. It's saying "don't use Signal because Signal is less than perfect". Calling the counterarguments in that thread "protectionism" suggests you feel likewise. If you want to discuss how a follow-on from Signal could and maybe should address some or all of those points, great! That's a conversation worth having. But it doesn't sound from your toplevel comment as though it is the conversation you're trying to start.
    - bahjoite 10y ago
      > It's saying "don't use Signal because Signal is less than perfect". This is mis-categorisation. The article says "I won't recommend the use of Signal" and gives reasons and desired improvements.
    - eveningcoffee 10y ago
      I call it protectionism because it tries to dismiss the issues instead of discussing them. I think that you are misinterpreting the articles intention. It is more complex than a single statement. I believe that the author wants Signal to change in certain direction. It is hard to do when the userbase is growing regardless and people are not aware of the issues.
tptacek 10y ago
That link has in fact nothing to do with this paper.
- eveningcoffee 10y ago
  Yes, but it is relevant (also these were my first words btw).
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Not only is it not relevant, but your summary of the thread and of Signal's security model is inaccurate.
    - eveningcoffee 10y ago
      I do not know, perhaps your reply is addressed to some another comment as I did not mention Signal security model and I did not give a summary of the linked thread?
HurrdurrHodor 10y ago
This is relevant to practically using Signal but not actually to it's security.
- eveningcoffee 10y ago
  Yes, but what counts is practical security. I think we should keep this in mind. For example someone may make a false impression that because the messenger uses the signal protocol, it is secure (and points to this paper), but in fact its implementation makes it considerably less secure.

throwanem 10y ago

This is a classic example of making the perfect the enemy of the good.

eveningcoffee 10y ago
I disagree. These are valid points and dismissing them based on ignorance would be wrong. Instead we should discuss why these are not implemented and how could be proceed to implement them.
- throwanem 10y ago
  That's not what the article you cite is saying. It's saying "don't use Signal because Signal is less than perfect". Calling the counterarguments in that thread "protectionism" suggests you feel likewise. If you want to discuss how a follow-on from Signal could and maybe should address some or all of those points, great! That's a conversation worth having. But it doesn't sound from your toplevel comment as though it is the conversation you're trying to start.
  - bahjoite 10y ago
    > It's saying "don't use Signal because Signal is less than perfect". This is mis-categorisation. The article says "I won't recommend the use of Signal" and gives reasons and desired improvements.
  - eveningcoffee 10y ago
    I call it protectionism because it tries to dismiss the issues instead of discussing them. I think that you are misinterpreting the articles intention. It is more complex than a single statement. I believe that the author wants Signal to change in certain direction. It is hard to do when the userbase is growing regardless and people are not aware of the issues.

tptacek 10y ago

That link has in fact nothing to do with this paper.

eveningcoffee 10y ago
Yes, but it is relevant (also these were my first words btw).
- tptacek 10y ago
  Not only is it not relevant, but your summary of the thread and of Signal's security model is inaccurate.
  - eveningcoffee 10y ago
    I do not know, perhaps your reply is addressed to some another comment as I did not mention Signal security model and I did not give a summary of the linked thread?

HurrdurrHodor 10y ago

This is relevant to practically using Signal but not actually to it's security.

eveningcoffee 10y ago
Yes, but what counts is practical security. I think we should keep this in mind. For example someone may make a false impression that because the messenger uses the signal protocol, it is secure (and points to this paper), but in fact its implementation makes it considerably less secure.