4 ms·

“It has roots in SMS” is of course absolutely miskeading as Signal is technologically completely different and there’s still on that level nothing that would pr

by acqq 8y ago

“It has roots in SMS” is of course absolutely miskeading as Signal is technologically completely different and there’s still on that level nothing that would prevent the producers of Signal to allow anybody to use any other way of identification. So I still claim that the fact they don’t has some very strong reasons that are completely opposite to the security of their users. And I still haven’t read here any argument that disproves that.

tptacek 8y ago
There's nothing to "disprove". The project has a different goal than you have. That apparently makes you angry. That's fine; snipe at it all you want, and pick a different messenger. What you cannot get away with doing is making the argument that your disagreement with them is an indicator that they're compromised by the US Government. That's comically false. Snipe at them for things you can make actual arguments about (there are lots of those).
- acqq 8y ago
  > That apparently makes you angry "Apparently" because it's without any proof. > What you cannot get away with doing is making the argument that your disagreement with them is an indicator that they're compromised by the US Government. I'm not claiming that and I've never claimed that. I'm claiming only this: 1) there are no technical reasons for them insisting in their users giving them user's phone numbers and user's contact data: the underlying technology would not be any more complex without that. 2) There was(is?) actual monetary support of Signal development by the actual US spy organization (with the decades of historical support for these direct "spy" connections, some of which really amazing, see before). Which gives some additional context for the whole operation. Specifically "tainted" and "compromised by" were always only your formulations. I'd just say "given the circumstances, there can be observed some non-technical reasons behind some design decisions." Which would, I hope, be completely non-controversial if we would, for example, talk about Skype. Because for Skype we have the direct proofs from Snowden. And not having such for Signal we surely can say "we don't have proofs" but we also can't claim that "this time it's completely different." Even if Snowden himself talks nice (or something) about Signal. And downvoting my comments stating both is not changing these facts.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    I didn't see this comment until just now (it's buried 2 pages down in my comment history), let alone downvote it.

by acqq 8y ago

tptacek 8y ago

There's nothing to "disprove". The project has a different goal than you have. That apparently makes you angry. That's fine; snipe at it all you want, and pick a different messenger. What you cannot get away with doing is making the argument that your disagreement with them is an indicator that they're compromised by the US Government. That's comically false. Snipe at them for things you can make actual arguments about (there are lots of those).

acqq 8y ago
> That apparently makes you angry "Apparently" because it's without any proof. > What you cannot get away with doing is making the argument that your disagreement with them is an indicator that they're compromised by the US Government. I'm not claiming that and I've never claimed that. I'm claiming only this: 1) there are no technical reasons for them insisting in their users giving them user's phone numbers and user's contact data: the underlying technology would not be any more complex without that. 2) There was(is?) actual monetary support of Signal development by the actual US spy organization (with the decades of historical support for these direct "spy" connections, some of which really amazing, see before). Which gives some additional context for the whole operation. Specifically "tainted" and "compromised by" were always only your formulations. I'd just say "given the circumstances, there can be observed some non-technical reasons behind some design decisions." Which would, I hope, be completely non-controversial if we would, for example, talk about Skype. Because for Skype we have the direct proofs from Snowden. And not having such for Signal we surely can say "we don't have proofs" but we also can't claim that "this time it's completely different." Even if Snowden himself talks nice (or something) about Signal. And downvoting my comments stating both is not changing these facts.
- tptacek 8y ago
  I didn't see this comment until just now (it's buried 2 pages down in my comment history), let alone downvote it.