4 ms·

And which operating system does the author expect people to use Matrix on? The one he personally wrote and reviews every commit to? Does he expect everyone to o

by apeace 8y ago

And which operating system does the author expect people to use Matrix on? The one he personally wrote and reviews every commit to? Does he expect everyone to only chat on "trusted" open-source desktop operating systems and not their phones? The F-Droid argument is a really empty one. Packages are cryptographically signed? Are you verifying those signatures? In an article about "trust", can you explain how exactly you trust F-Droid packages and not Google Play ones? What about iOS? The whole article is extremely vapid and lacks any compelling argument. Signal has introduced state-of-the-art encryption to millions of people in an accessible way. The author goes on to poke fun at the animated GIF feature of Signal as if it is a waste of time compared to working on an F-Droid distribution, but neglects to address five of the seven points written by Moxie (which he links to) about why they chose not to do that.

jhasse 8y ago
> In an article about "trust", can you explain how exactly you trust F-Droid packages and not Google Play ones? It's easier for Google to manipulate a package on Google Play than on F-Droid. > Signal has introduced state-of-the-art encryption to millions of people in an accessible way. WhatsApp has done that to even more people, so what's the point of Signal?
- lorenzhs 8y ago
  > It's easier for Google to manipulate a package on Google Play than on F-Droid. That's not how Android app signing works. It's a "trust on first use" model, so once you install an app, any update must be signed by the same key or the system will refuse to install it. That key is held by Signal, not Google, so Google cannot sign updates to apps. > WhatsApp has done that to even more people, so what's the point of Signal? You know who implemented the end-to-end encryption in WhatsApp? The people behind Signal. But compared to Signal, WhatsApp provides a lot more metadata to the server, and it's owned by Facebook, a company not commonly associated with guarding your privacy. Both have their pros and cons, and both have legitimate reasons to exist.
  - jMyles 8y ago
    > That's not how Android app signing works. It's a "trust on first use" model, so once you install an app, any update must be signed by the same key or the system will refuse to install it. That key is held by Signal, not Google, so Google cannot sign updates to apps. My understanding (and I'd love to be corrected if I'm wrong) is that Google Play Services run with access to root privileges, and thus can circumvent this protection without the user becoming aware.
  - jhasse 8y ago
    > That's not how Android app signing works. Google has root, so it can change how app signing works at any time. > Both have their pros and cons, and both have legitimate reasons to exist. I just looks to me like whenever someone mentions a pro point of Signal, it's something where WhatsApp shines even more (e.g. "brings end-to-end encryption to the masses", "it's available on the App stores", "better iOS support than something like Tox", ...).
    - lorenzhs 8y ago
      > Google has root, so it can change how app signing works at any time. This argument boils down to "what if the government compels Google to infect your phone with spyware", and it's already been established elsewhere in this thread that using a smartphone for sensitive communication might not be the best idea if the NSA is after you. Regarding advantages of Signal over WhatsApp, I just gave you one in the message you replied to. WhatsApp provides a lot of metadata to their servers (this is necessary for some of their features, like group invite links). And while end-to-end encryption protects the contents of your messages, Facebook can still observe when and how much you chat with whom. Some further advantages off the top of my hat: Signal has reproducible builds (on Android), the Desktop client works when your phone is off. They're also working on private contact discovery (I don't know how far this has progressed): https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/ https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/
    - lorenzhs 8y ago
      Also, the whole “play services are running as root” thing, while repeated often, appears to be just not true: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17727705 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17727705

by apeace 8y ago

jhasse 8y ago

> In an article about "trust", can you explain how exactly you trust F-Droid packages and not Google Play ones? It's easier for Google to manipulate a package on Google Play than on F-Droid. > Signal has introduced state-of-the-art encryption to millions of people in an accessible way. WhatsApp has done that to even more people, so what's the point of Signal?

lorenzhs 8y ago
> It's easier for Google to manipulate a package on Google Play than on F-Droid. That's not how Android app signing works. It's a "trust on first use" model, so once you install an app, any update must be signed by the same key or the system will refuse to install it. That key is held by Signal, not Google, so Google cannot sign updates to apps. > WhatsApp has done that to even more people, so what's the point of Signal? You know who implemented the end-to-end encryption in WhatsApp? The people behind Signal. But compared to Signal, WhatsApp provides a lot more metadata to the server, and it's owned by Facebook, a company not commonly associated with guarding your privacy. Both have their pros and cons, and both have legitimate reasons to exist.
- jMyles 8y ago
  > That's not how Android app signing works. It's a "trust on first use" model, so once you install an app, any update must be signed by the same key or the system will refuse to install it. That key is held by Signal, not Google, so Google cannot sign updates to apps. My understanding (and I'd love to be corrected if I'm wrong) is that Google Play Services run with access to root privileges, and thus can circumvent this protection without the user becoming aware.
- jhasse 8y ago
  > That's not how Android app signing works. Google has root, so it can change how app signing works at any time. > Both have their pros and cons, and both have legitimate reasons to exist. I just looks to me like whenever someone mentions a pro point of Signal, it's something where WhatsApp shines even more (e.g. "brings end-to-end encryption to the masses", "it's available on the App stores", "better iOS support than something like Tox", ...).
  - lorenzhs 8y ago
    > Google has root, so it can change how app signing works at any time. This argument boils down to "what if the government compels Google to infect your phone with spyware", and it's already been established elsewhere in this thread that using a smartphone for sensitive communication might not be the best idea if the NSA is after you. Regarding advantages of Signal over WhatsApp, I just gave you one in the message you replied to. WhatsApp provides a lot of metadata to their servers (this is necessary for some of their features, like group invite links). And while end-to-end encryption protects the contents of your messages, Facebook can still observe when and how much you chat with whom. Some further advantages off the top of my hat: Signal has reproducible builds (on Android), the Desktop client works when your phone is off. They're also working on private contact discovery (I don't know how far this has progressed): https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/ https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/
  - lorenzhs 8y ago
    Also, the whole “play services are running as root” thing, while repeated often, appears to be just not true: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17727705 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17727705