4 ms·
>Translation: Signals ability to forcefully change the software and protocol out for users without any consent (much less informed consent) renders it functiona
by na85 6y ago
>Translation: Signals ability to forcefully change the software and protocol out for users without any consent (much less informed consent) renders it functionally immune to any criticism or review because any aspect of the protocol could be changed ('improved') at a moments notice.
What percentage of users, globally, do you suppose are qualified to make informed consent on arbitrary patches to $secure_messenger of your choosing?
- nullc 6y agoInformed consent for a drug doesn't mean that you personally understand molecular biology. It usually means that you've received and understand factual information about the tradeoffs from hopefully neutral parties who are acting in your best interest and can weigh those considerations based on your own priorities and preferences. And that you can make the choice you make free of coercion, or otherwise it isn't consent at all. Signal's software management practices make the system largely opaque even to experts, and what review does happen comes at a significant lag. This is evidenced by the substantial number of times that signal has had to back-pedal on a change after substantial backlash. Even where it isn't opaque, there is no consent: the software stops running if you don't accept all changes, and seldom are changes introduced as optional features (default-on or otherwise).
- sneak 6y agoTo your point: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Desktop/issues/4578 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Desktop/issues/4578