4 ms·

If Signal were federated, there would be no single entity to shut down. Alas...

thanksforfish 6y ago
Given the amount of open source code already, it should be possible to clone. Edit: see below, server code is open. Keeping original text below: IIRC the server code is proprietary, but the clients are open. That's a decent starting point. https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android
- correct_horse 6y ago
  The server is also open source https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server
  - bscphil 6y ago
    Am I mistaken or isn't there some way in which Signal effectively prevents anyone from running their own server? I seem to recall hearing this. (I mean, there's the obvious practical problem that the official server URL is hardcoded into the app, so if you wanted to use your own server you'd have to build your own copies of the app for you and your communicants, but other than that...?)
- tialaramex 6y ago
  A pile of separate Signal clones = zero interoperability = zero functionality. So that's why there aren't any. You could solve that by Federating, except... Federation would be lovely if you could actually deliver Signal's goals and do federation for free, but what we always see from proponents of Federation is that was their goal and so they're done. Oh you wanted security? Sorry, we federated everything, so you'll need to get every single member of the federation on board with every single change you need, we know you can't get that done but that's fine because our priority was federating stuff, so we are successful, shame about your goals. As an example, somebody earlier in this thread mentions you can "just" know who is communicating with who anyway. Signal got rid of that, because they can, and it's a security improvement, so they put all the work in and did it. Now even Signal's own servers don't know who sent most messages! "Sealed Sender" means Signal has no idea who is sending this message to my friend Steve. Maybe it's me? No idea. It just has to be somebody who Steve allows to send him messages. Could be Steve loves spam and so it's a spammer. Could be Steve loves the AfD and so it's a Nazi. No way to know without reading the message which only Steve's Signal client can do. Now imagine trying to roll that out to a federated system. After years of effort maybe you switch it on, and then you find a bug and have to switch it off again for a few years while you fix that. Hopeless.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    But conversely, if legislation really succeeds in killing Signal in the entirety of US (and EU won't be far behind!) to the point where they're forced to use geo-IP blocks, the end result is still strictly worse off.
  - bscphil 6y ago
    > You could solve that by Federating, except... Federation would be lovely if you could actually deliver Signal's goals and do federation for free, but what we always see from proponents of Federation is that was their goal and so they're done. Oh you wanted security? Sorry, we federated everything, so you'll need to get every single member of the federation on board with every single change you need, we know you can't get that done but that's fine because our priority was federating stuff, so we are successful, shame about your goals. I have a lot of serious criticisms of Matrix, to the point where I don't recommend it to friends (yet?), but this feels like an unfair and unserious criticism. I don't think you can fault their motives. And as another user points out, if Signal goes down in the United States because of legislation, so much for the supposed convenience of your non-federated central server approach! If that happens I'll take Matrix over nothing, thanks.
ComputerGuru 6y ago
I get where you are coming from but given the walled garden there is no need to kill the severs. Merely blocking all clients from the Apple Store and the Play Store would accomplish the same thing, federated or not.
- mkup 6y ago
  That's why it is essential for end user to have an ability to sideload apps to the phone (i.e. to bypass vendor's store).
  - einpoklum 6y ago
    Which they do. Well, on Android phones anyway.
    - wyre 6y ago
      Signal recommends downloading through the play store. They don't endorse downloaded apks
      - maqp 6y ago
        And for a very good reason. They're also offering the APK for those that need it, and they might make it more accessible e.g. for US users if EARN IT passes.
      - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
        While Signal would prefer that most people with Play store use Play store, downloaded APKs are not entirely unendorsed. Firstly, Signal continues to offer an APK for download. Secondly, if you install Signal from the downloaded APK, then Signal acts as its own app store in order to prompt the user to install updates when available.
    - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
      Android sideloading has been progressively weakened. Google’s plans for AOSP are that sideloading will soon require using the ADB debugging bridge, which would require enabling developer mode on Android versions that allow it (which would scare most ordinary people away) and would be impossible on Android versions where the manufacturer has forbidden it.
ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
Your comment makes zero sense, let me explain: most people use signal through the iOS app. It is very easy to shut down an iOS app. Hope you got it!
- pengaru 6y ago
  > Your comment makes zero sense, let me explain: most people use signal through the iOS app. It is very easy to shut down an iOS app. If Apple users actually controlled the software running on their devices that wouldn't be an issue. A want for federated services complements a want for control over our computing.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  If you care so much about uncensorable resilient service you probably already use either jailbroken iOS or Android. And if you don't, then do. iOS has a 13% market share anyways. Hope you got it!
  - ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
    Sorry but iOS actually has a 60% market share in the US[1], which is the country we're talking about, hope you got it! [1]: https://lmgtfy.com/?q=ios+market+share+us https://lmgtfy.com/?q=ios+market+share+us
  - filoleg 6y ago
    > iOS has a 13% market share anyways. Not in the US, where as of March 2020 it maintains a 60.1% share.
- mirimir 6y ago
  That'd be easy to fix, if Apple wanted to.
eeZah7Ux 6y ago
Why the stupid downvotes? Signal's walled garden can be its demise.
- jplayer01 6y ago
  Signal is open source. If you want to develop and host your own Signal, go right ahead. You’d just be opening yourself up to the same problem facing the Signal Foundation. As it is, the Signal Foundation would suddenly be open to lawsuits, and they’re the main developers of Signal.
  - mirimir 6y ago
    So don't be discoverable!
  - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
    > If you want to develop and host your own Signal, go right ahead. ...and have an ecosystem of users that cannot communicate with users on Signal. That's what lock-in is and "go right ahead" is just not enough. > You’d just be opening yourself up to the same problem facing the Signal Foundation citation needed

Given the amount of open source code already, it should be possible to clone. Edit: see below, server code is open. Keeping original text below: IIRC the server code is proprietary, but the clients are open. That's a decent starting point. https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android

correct_horse 6y ago
The server is also open source https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server
- bscphil 6y ago
  Am I mistaken or isn't there some way in which Signal effectively prevents anyone from running their own server? I seem to recall hearing this. (I mean, there's the obvious practical problem that the official server URL is hardcoded into the app, so if you wanted to use your own server you'd have to build your own copies of the app for you and your communicants, but other than that...?)
tialaramex 6y ago
A pile of separate Signal clones = zero interoperability = zero functionality. So that's why there aren't any. You could solve that by Federating, except... Federation would be lovely if you could actually deliver Signal's goals and do federation for free, but what we always see from proponents of Federation is that was their goal and so they're done. Oh you wanted security? Sorry, we federated everything, so you'll need to get every single member of the federation on board with every single change you need, we know you can't get that done but that's fine because our priority was federating stuff, so we are successful, shame about your goals. As an example, somebody earlier in this thread mentions you can "just" know who is communicating with who anyway. Signal got rid of that, because they can, and it's a security improvement, so they put all the work in and did it. Now even Signal's own servers don't know who sent most messages! "Sealed Sender" means Signal has no idea who is sending this message to my friend Steve. Maybe it's me? No idea. It just has to be somebody who Steve allows to send him messages. Could be Steve loves spam and so it's a spammer. Could be Steve loves the AfD and so it's a Nazi. No way to know without reading the message which only Steve's Signal client can do. Now imagine trying to roll that out to a federated system. After years of effort maybe you switch it on, and then you find a bug and have to switch it off again for a few years while you fix that. Hopeless.
- int_19h 6y ago
  But conversely, if legislation really succeeds in killing Signal in the entirety of US (and EU won't be far behind!) to the point where they're forced to use geo-IP blocks, the end result is still strictly worse off.
- bscphil 6y ago
  > You could solve that by Federating, except... Federation would be lovely if you could actually deliver Signal's goals and do federation for free, but what we always see from proponents of Federation is that was their goal and so they're done. Oh you wanted security? Sorry, we federated everything, so you'll need to get every single member of the federation on board with every single change you need, we know you can't get that done but that's fine because our priority was federating stuff, so we are successful, shame about your goals. I have a lot of serious criticisms of Matrix, to the point where I don't recommend it to friends (yet?), but this feels like an unfair and unserious criticism. I don't think you can fault their motives. And as another user points out, if Signal goes down in the United States because of legislation, so much for the supposed convenience of your non-federated central server approach! If that happens I'll take Matrix over nothing, thanks.

ComputerGuru 6y ago

I get where you are coming from but given the walled garden there is no need to kill the severs. Merely blocking all clients from the Apple Store and the Play Store would accomplish the same thing, federated or not.

mkup 6y ago
That's why it is essential for end user to have an ability to sideload apps to the phone (i.e. to bypass vendor's store).
- einpoklum 6y ago
  Which they do. Well, on Android phones anyway.
  - wyre 6y ago
    Signal recommends downloading through the play store. They don't endorse downloaded apks
    - maqp 6y ago
      And for a very good reason. They're also offering the APK for those that need it, and they might make it more accessible e.g. for US users if EARN IT passes.
    - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
      While Signal would prefer that most people with Play store use Play store, downloaded APKs are not entirely unendorsed. Firstly, Signal continues to offer an APK for download. Secondly, if you install Signal from the downloaded APK, then Signal acts as its own app store in order to prompt the user to install updates when available.
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    Android sideloading has been progressively weakened. Google’s plans for AOSP are that sideloading will soon require using the ADB debugging bridge, which would require enabling developer mode on Android versions that allow it (which would scare most ordinary people away) and would be impossible on Android versions where the manufacturer has forbidden it.

ccktlmazeltov 6y ago

Your comment makes zero sense, let me explain: most people use signal through the iOS app. It is very easy to shut down an iOS app. Hope you got it!

pengaru 6y ago
> Your comment makes zero sense, let me explain: most people use signal through the iOS app. It is very easy to shut down an iOS app. If Apple users actually controlled the software running on their devices that wouldn't be an issue. A want for federated services complements a want for control over our computing.
sudosysgen 6y ago
If you care so much about uncensorable resilient service you probably already use either jailbroken iOS or Android. And if you don't, then do. iOS has a 13% market share anyways. Hope you got it!
- ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
  Sorry but iOS actually has a 60% market share in the US[1], which is the country we're talking about, hope you got it! [1]: https://lmgtfy.com/?q=ios+market+share+us https://lmgtfy.com/?q=ios+market+share+us
- filoleg 6y ago
  > iOS has a 13% market share anyways. Not in the US, where as of March 2020 it maintains a 60.1% share.
mirimir 6y ago
That'd be easy to fix, if Apple wanted to.

eeZah7Ux 6y ago

Why the stupid downvotes? Signal's walled garden can be its demise.

jplayer01 6y ago
Signal is open source. If you want to develop and host your own Signal, go right ahead. You’d just be opening yourself up to the same problem facing the Signal Foundation. As it is, the Signal Foundation would suddenly be open to lawsuits, and they’re the main developers of Signal.
- mirimir 6y ago
  So don't be discoverable!
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago
  > If you want to develop and host your own Signal, go right ahead. ...and have an ecosystem of users that cannot communicate with users on Signal. That's what lock-in is and "go right ahead" is just not enough. > You’d just be opening yourself up to the same problem facing the Signal Foundation citation needed