6 ms·

What really hurts Signal are two things: * sub-par user experience: WhatsApp is just nicer and smoother, and people tend to like that * very few people unders

by jwr 6y ago

What really hurts Signal are two things: * sub-par user experience: WhatsApp is just nicer and smoother, and people tend to like that * very few people understand that Signal DOES NOT get your full contact list, while Facebook (through WhatsApp) does Especially the second point is very relevant with the current situation — you do not necessarily want to expose your entire social graph to Facebook. But so few people understand this, and even fewer grasp that Signal can still work without doing the same thing.

sekai 6y ago
Telegram is a great alternative also, offers encrypted chat's also.
- outadoc 6y ago
  Not encrypted by default afaik.
  - partyboat1586 6y ago
    Yeah you have to manually start an encrypted chat. I always thought that increased the sense of security since you have the lock symbol and all but apparently people prefer encryption by default.
  - theshrike79 6y ago
    They're all encrypted, but only specifically created Secret Chats are end-to-end encrypted.
    - CultOfSkaro 6y ago
      Encrypted in transit... But stored plain-text accessible in Telegram’s cloud. They store all your metadata, full contact list, all conversations, all media and attachments, etc. If you value your privacy, Telegram is the absolute worst and one of the most dangerous messengers out there. Telegram should never be recommended as a secure alternative. It’s insecure right to their core. Heck, even their secret chat crypto is a joke. Telegram should be avoided at all costs for private and/or sensitive communication. Even WhatsApp is wayyy more secure.
- partyboat1586 6y ago
  imo it has the best UX of any chat app right now. It's like a souped up WhatsApp. Faster too.
- usertiljune2020 6y ago
  I don’t trust telegram. Chats are stored forever on their servers encrypted using their secret method.
outadoc 6y ago
Honestly even if the UX is still behind WhatsApp, I have seen it improve continuously since I've started using it. Images (with annotations), videos (with some controls like trimming), gifs, sound recordings, stickers, emojis... it's great and honestly good enough for most imo. Especially compared to WhatsApp which isn't really on the bleeding edge of social features either.
est31 6y ago
> Signal DOES NOT get your full contact list The full contact list is uploaded to Signal servers by the phones. The only protection layer that users have is the questionable security of Intel's SGX. It's still much better than what WhatsApp is doing, just not a black and white situation. To add a point to your list: Signal does not have automatic cloud backup of messages, unlike WhatsApp. On WhatsApp, 30% of users have cloud backups enabled [1], meaning that you can basically assume that any reasonably sized group's messages can be accessed by people who have subpoena-power over Google (chance that there is no backup-enabled account in a group of n people is (1-0.3)^n... for 6 people it's already 12%). [1]: https://telegra.ph/whatsapp-backdoor-01-16 https://telegra.ph/whatsapp-backdoor-01-16
- acdha 6y ago
  Do you have a reference for the claim that your full contact list is uploaded to servers? That seems important since their privacy policy says that they only use hashes, and it can’t be dependent on SGX since it runs on non-Intel hardware: https://signal.org/legal/#privacy-policy https://signal.org/legal/#privacy-policy
  - est31 6y ago
    The method is explained here: https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/ https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/ Yes, it's hashes of phone numbers instead of the phone numbers themselves, but that's a detail. Phone numbers are easy to brute-force especially for people the protesters are worried about, as well as easy to build rainbow tables for.
    - acdha 6y ago
      I think you might want a better way of phrasing that: it’s not the “full contact list” - most people would assume that includes names and all of the other metadata - and since it’s rate-limited there’s an interesting trade off where it’s not easy to brute-force but it is targetable if you are trying to track specific known people.
WhompingWindows 6y ago
I don't think Signal is "really hurt" by WhatsApp being slightly smoother and nicer. Signal caters to those who put a premium on privacy, they are ready and willing to have a slightly less "nice and smooth" UX. Why does it "really hurt" Signal that are sub-group of the population is ignorant of its features? I doubt that's going to stop people from downloading a privacy app, most people don't care about privacy anyway, and if they do, they will DL signal.
- dastx 6y ago
  > I don't think Signal is "really hurt" by WhatsApp being slightly smoother and nicer. Signal caters to those who put a premium on privacy, they are ready and willing to have a slightly less "nice and smooth" UX. Having a slightly worse UX because that's just security considerations is one thing. Having a slightly worse UX because reason that isn't related to security is another. I've tried getting my wife onto signal, and while she's happy to try it out because I ask her to, she struggles to stay on it due to by day to day UX. I'm happy to deal with the issues, the general is not. And because they're not, I'm stuck with WhatsApp too. If signal wants to have a shot at taking over WhatsApp and help with addressing the core issue at hand, specifically encryption between users, they need to address the UX. Sure if you can't address certain things because it weakens security fine, but if you're not addressing them because they think users won't mind because they're here for something else (i.e. security), it's gonna be a much harder sell, and it'll just stay a niche market.
cvburgess 6y ago
> WhatsApp is just nicer and smoother, and people tend to like that Ive used both for a while and WhatsApp is aweful, at least on iOS by all standards I can find. Signal feels like iMessage with reactions, voice recordings, and handy tools. WhatsApp feels dated, clunky, and for groups it gets very very messy fast with out reactions.
- m12k 6y ago
  IMO Telegram has the nicest ux of them all, but Signal is finally good enough

by jwr 6y ago

sekai 6y ago

Telegram is a great alternative also, offers encrypted chat's also.

outadoc 6y ago
Not encrypted by default afaik.
- partyboat1586 6y ago
  Yeah you have to manually start an encrypted chat. I always thought that increased the sense of security since you have the lock symbol and all but apparently people prefer encryption by default.
- theshrike79 6y ago
  They're all encrypted, but only specifically created Secret Chats are end-to-end encrypted.
  - CultOfSkaro 6y ago
    Encrypted in transit... But stored plain-text accessible in Telegram’s cloud. They store all your metadata, full contact list, all conversations, all media and attachments, etc. If you value your privacy, Telegram is the absolute worst and one of the most dangerous messengers out there. Telegram should never be recommended as a secure alternative. It’s insecure right to their core. Heck, even their secret chat crypto is a joke. Telegram should be avoided at all costs for private and/or sensitive communication. Even WhatsApp is wayyy more secure.
partyboat1586 6y ago
imo it has the best UX of any chat app right now. It's like a souped up WhatsApp. Faster too.
usertiljune2020 6y ago
I don’t trust telegram. Chats are stored forever on their servers encrypted using their secret method.

outadoc 6y ago

Honestly even if the UX is still behind WhatsApp, I have seen it improve continuously since I've started using it. Images (with annotations), videos (with some controls like trimming), gifs, sound recordings, stickers, emojis... it's great and honestly good enough for most imo. Especially compared to WhatsApp which isn't really on the bleeding edge of social features either.

est31 6y ago

> Signal DOES NOT get your full contact list The full contact list is uploaded to Signal servers by the phones. The only protection layer that users have is the questionable security of Intel's SGX. It's still much better than what WhatsApp is doing, just not a black and white situation. To add a point to your list: Signal does not have automatic cloud backup of messages, unlike WhatsApp. On WhatsApp, 30% of users have cloud backups enabled [1], meaning that you can basically assume that any reasonably sized group's messages can be accessed by people who have subpoena-power over Google (chance that there is no backup-enabled account in a group of n people is (1-0.3)^n... for 6 people it's already 12%). [1]: https://telegra.ph/whatsapp-backdoor-01-16 https://telegra.ph/whatsapp-backdoor-01-16

acdha 6y ago
Do you have a reference for the claim that your full contact list is uploaded to servers? That seems important since their privacy policy says that they only use hashes, and it can’t be dependent on SGX since it runs on non-Intel hardware: https://signal.org/legal/#privacy-policy https://signal.org/legal/#privacy-policy
- est31 6y ago
  The method is explained here: https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/ https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/ Yes, it's hashes of phone numbers instead of the phone numbers themselves, but that's a detail. Phone numbers are easy to brute-force especially for people the protesters are worried about, as well as easy to build rainbow tables for.
  - acdha 6y ago
    I think you might want a better way of phrasing that: it’s not the “full contact list” - most people would assume that includes names and all of the other metadata - and since it’s rate-limited there’s an interesting trade off where it’s not easy to brute-force but it is targetable if you are trying to track specific known people.

WhompingWindows 6y ago

I don't think Signal is "really hurt" by WhatsApp being slightly smoother and nicer. Signal caters to those who put a premium on privacy, they are ready and willing to have a slightly less "nice and smooth" UX. Why does it "really hurt" Signal that are sub-group of the population is ignorant of its features? I doubt that's going to stop people from downloading a privacy app, most people don't care about privacy anyway, and if they do, they will DL signal.

dastx 6y ago
> I don't think Signal is "really hurt" by WhatsApp being slightly smoother and nicer. Signal caters to those who put a premium on privacy, they are ready and willing to have a slightly less "nice and smooth" UX. Having a slightly worse UX because that's just security considerations is one thing. Having a slightly worse UX because reason that isn't related to security is another. I've tried getting my wife onto signal, and while she's happy to try it out because I ask her to, she struggles to stay on it due to by day to day UX. I'm happy to deal with the issues, the general is not. And because they're not, I'm stuck with WhatsApp too. If signal wants to have a shot at taking over WhatsApp and help with addressing the core issue at hand, specifically encryption between users, they need to address the UX. Sure if you can't address certain things because it weakens security fine, but if you're not addressing them because they think users won't mind because they're here for something else (i.e. security), it's gonna be a much harder sell, and it'll just stay a niche market.

cvburgess 6y ago

> WhatsApp is just nicer and smoother, and people tend to like that Ive used both for a while and WhatsApp is aweful, at least on iOS by all standards I can find. Signal feels like iMessage with reactions, voice recordings, and handy tools. WhatsApp feels dated, clunky, and for groups it gets very very messy fast with out reactions.

m12k 6y ago
IMO Telegram has the nicest ux of them all, but Signal is finally good enough