3 ms·

The first 60% of the post is a technical explainer of SVR, and SGX which it relies on. I've been meaning to write this post for a while, and it doesn't become l

The first 60% of the post is a technical explainer of SVR, and SGX which it relies on. I've been meaning to write this post for a while, and it doesn't become less relevant because Moxie hacked in an opt-out -- SVR is still present in Signal, and therefore it's still technically interesting. It will likely become more technically interesting over time. The first paragraph that I think you could actually consider a criticism of Signal is this one: "My major issue with SVR is that it’s something I basically don’t want, and don’t trust. I’m happy with Signal offering it as an option to users, as long as users are allowed to choose not to use it. Unfortunately, up until this week, Signal was not giving users that choice." (I added the emphasis here, just to make clear you don't have to read to the addendum for this information.) I guess we'll have to disagree on this one. It seems like you view this as an attack on Signal, and I view it as a tech post that contains a mild criticism.

tptacek 6y ago
See, I absolutely believe that's why you wrote it this way, because it's how I'd first approach writing this too: there's a fun explain-y part and then a "why does this matter" part, which I think is the schematic for basically every blog post I've written. But I'm telling you that's not how it reads, especially after you had a Twitter fight with Moxie, which makes this read as your postmortem to that argument --- but even for readers unfamiliar with that drama, this is the most critical you've been of Signal on your blog; at one point late in the post you even suggest that they might be dishonest about their intentions with the feature. Even HN, which is not especially inclined to be charitable about Signal (this is Matrix country) can imagine better reasons why SGX might be sensible in this design than your post does. If you don't want it to read that way, you should bring up some of the content from the addendum, even though it does lessen the impact of your side-channel stuff when readers know that they can just opt out of it.
- matthewdgreen 6y ago
  I suggested that Signal might deploy an incredibly powerful general-purpose backup system, and then use that backup system for purposes other than storing the social graph. And Signal claims that is not their intent, but they don't rule out storing other thing either. They have already hinted at bigger plans for this system, though not specifically. I don't think that this is "accusing them of dishonesty", I think it's common sense. And would be happy to bet you money that I'll be right.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    Ok. I think we're more invested in dissecting why I thought your post was written weirdly than an accusation of "weirdness" really merits, and am comfortable just disagreeing here.

tptacek 6y ago

See, I absolutely believe that's why you wrote it this way, because it's how I'd first approach writing this too: there's a fun explain-y part and then a "why does this matter" part, which I think is the schematic for basically every blog post I've written. But I'm telling you that's not how it reads, especially after you had a Twitter fight with Moxie, which makes this read as your postmortem to that argument --- but even for readers unfamiliar with that drama, this is the most critical you've been of Signal on your blog; at one point late in the post you even suggest that they might be dishonest about their intentions with the feature. Even HN, which is not especially inclined to be charitable about Signal (this is Matrix country) can imagine better reasons why SGX might be sensible in this design than your post does. If you don't want it to read that way, you should bring up some of the content from the addendum, even though it does lessen the impact of your side-channel stuff when readers know that they can just opt out of it.

matthewdgreen 6y ago
I suggested that Signal might deploy an incredibly powerful general-purpose backup system, and then use that backup system for purposes other than storing the social graph. And Signal claims that is not their intent, but they don't rule out storing other thing either. They have already hinted at bigger plans for this system, though not specifically. I don't think that this is "accusing them of dishonesty", I think it's common sense. And would be happy to bet you money that I'll be right.
- tptacek 6y ago
  Ok. I think we're more invested in dissecting why I thought your post was written weirdly than an accusation of "weirdness" really merits, and am comfortable just disagreeing here.