3 ms·

If they were security and privacy first they would not implement groups the way they did originally.

• tialaramex 7y ago
  Mmm? The existing groups were secure and private, but lacked some useful functionality. That's exactly what I'd expect to get implemented with "security and privacy first" as priority. For example Signal didn't have a way for a group to boot out a member against their will. If you didn't want to be in a group with Mary any more, and she wouldn't voluntarily leave, you would all need to go form a new group. Signal's servers can't know who is in a group (privacy) so it took a bunch more heavy lifting to develop this feature. Surely the other way around to do this would indeed not be putting "security and privacy first" ?
  • rapsey 7y ago
    https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2018/01/11/whatsapp-signal-group-chats/ https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2018/01/11/whatsapp-signal-g...
    • ixwt 7y ago
      > For example Signal didn't have a way for a group to boot out a member against their will. This article says just as much. Sure, you could brute force a 128 bit key to get into a random group. And if you were kicked out of a group, you could re-add yourself if you had saved the group key. But even the article says it's not super likely.