3 ms·

> Most people don't need better-than-TLS security I agree with the literal interpretation of this statement; most Signal users don't need that level of securit

> Most people don't need better-than-TLS security I agree with the literal interpretation of this statement; most Signal users don't need that level of security. But many users want a level of security that makes it much harder for their government to intercept their messages, and I believe Signal is better for that than Facebook Messenger. I think you could make a convincing argument that Whisper could be strong-armed by the US government, but for me it seems unlikely that they could be compelled to install a back door by Turkey, Russia, China, or some other such illiberal regime (at least, less likely than Google/Facebook). For example, see https://www.cultofmac.com/426440/whatsapp-wins-encryption-victory-in-brazilian-courts/ https://www.cultofmac.com/426440/whatsapp-wins-encryption-vi..., where WhatsApp (which uses the Signal protocol) was not able/willing to hand over message data to a Brazilian court. That is the feature that Signal users are choosing that FB Messenger does not have.

Joeboy 9y ago
To add to this, I believe Signal is open source and has reproducible builds so its chances of getting away with mischief on a large scale are much lower than Facebook's / WhatsApp's. Even if you (weirdly IMO) think Whisper Systems is less trustworthy than Facebook.
lmm 9y ago
> I think you could make a convincing argument that Whisper could be strong-armed by the US government, but for me it seems unlikely that they could be compelled to install a back door by Turkey, Russia, China, or some other such illiberal regime (at least, less likely than Google/Facebook). > For example, see https://www.cultofmac.com/426440/whatsapp-wins-encryption-vi... https://www.cultofmac.com/426440/whatsapp-wins-encryption-vi..., where WhatsApp (which uses the Signal protocol) was not able/willing to hand over message data to a Brazilian court. That is the feature that Signal users are choosing that FB Messenger does not have. Actually I'd say it's a feature that FB Messenger has and Signal doesn't, since the salient fact is that Facebook inc. refused to turn over private messages. Facebook has the resources to play hardball with governments; they could afford to have their service shut off for 3 days in Brazil. Does Signal have that kind of warchest?
- theptip 9y ago
  I'm not sure if they need a warchest; my point was that Whisper don't have a presence in Brazil and so they probably couldn't be compelled to do anything by the government there, whereas FB has employees and execs there, and directly do business there, so there are all sorts of levers that the Brazilian government can (and have tried to) pull to compel them. Frankly I suspect it would be good press for Moxie if he had an arrest warrant outstanding for not turning over customer messages to a government. Also note that FB Messenger doesn't have e2e encryption, and I'm fairly sure that FB would hand over any data that they do have to any government that asked. They certainly hand such information over to the NSA. The reason I brought WhatsApp in as an example was because even Facebook, a company well-known for sharing its users' data with government security agencies, was not able to share Signal messages. That is fairly strong evidence that their protocol implementation does not have a secret backdoor; if there was such a backdoor, there would be no story of an FB exec in jail, since FB would have quietly handed over the messages that Brazil asked for.

Joeboy 9y ago

To add to this, I believe Signal is open source and has reproducible builds so its chances of getting away with mischief on a large scale are much lower than Facebook's / WhatsApp's. Even if you (weirdly IMO) think Whisper Systems is less trustworthy than Facebook.

lmm 9y ago

> I think you could make a convincing argument that Whisper could be strong-armed by the US government, but for me it seems unlikely that they could be compelled to install a back door by Turkey, Russia, China, or some other such illiberal regime (at least, less likely than Google/Facebook). > For example, see https://www.cultofmac.com/426440/whatsapp-wins-encryption-vi... https://www.cultofmac.com/426440/whatsapp-wins-encryption-vi..., where WhatsApp (which uses the Signal protocol) was not able/willing to hand over message data to a Brazilian court. That is the feature that Signal users are choosing that FB Messenger does not have. Actually I'd say it's a feature that FB Messenger has and Signal doesn't, since the salient fact is that Facebook inc. refused to turn over private messages. Facebook has the resources to play hardball with governments; they could afford to have their service shut off for 3 days in Brazil. Does Signal have that kind of warchest?

theptip 9y ago
I'm not sure if they need a warchest; my point was that Whisper don't have a presence in Brazil and so they probably couldn't be compelled to do anything by the government there, whereas FB has employees and execs there, and directly do business there, so there are all sorts of levers that the Brazilian government can (and have tried to) pull to compel them. Frankly I suspect it would be good press for Moxie if he had an arrest warrant outstanding for not turning over customer messages to a government. Also note that FB Messenger doesn't have e2e encryption, and I'm fairly sure that FB would hand over any data that they do have to any government that asked. They certainly hand such information over to the NSA. The reason I brought WhatsApp in as an example was because even Facebook, a company well-known for sharing its users' data with government security agencies, was not able to share Signal messages. That is fairly strong evidence that their protocol implementation does not have a secret backdoor; if there was such a backdoor, there would be no story of an FB exec in jail, since FB would have quietly handed over the messages that Brazil asked for.