12 ms·

Once again - Signal[0] as an alternative. It's fully Open-Source (including the backend) and their crypto is public and independently verified[1][2][3]... [0]

• sagivo 6y ago
  How is it compared to telegram?
  • utf_8x 6y ago
    IMO it works just as well and unlike Telegram it's actually credible... The telegram crypto is an absolute disaster and they have been pretty shady and defensive when asked about it in the past. Not to mention the back-end is closed-source. Also, the desktop clients still don't support encryption, many years after it's been first requested.
    • domano 6y ago
      Do you have some links regarding their disastrous encryption? The security guys i know speak highly of telegram and AFAIK it has been open sourced recently, but i am open to new information.
      • utf_8x 6y ago
        The Telegram backend is still closed-source as far as I know. The problem with their crypto is that nobody really knows if it's secure or not because it's closed and unverified. Ever heard the first rule of encryption? "Never roll your own crypto". Well they broke the rule and they won't let anyone check if the crypto is secure or not. Not to mention encryption is off by default and your plaintext messages are stored on their servers...
        • blehn 6y ago
          Cite some sources. They clearly do not store your messages in plaintext on their servers https://telegram.org/privacy#3-3-your-messages https://telegram.org/privacy#3-3-your-messages https://telegram.org/privacy#4-1-storing-data https://telegram.org/privacy#4-1-storing-data
          • fsflover 6y ago
            > in plaintext They have the encryption key, so the difference is not huge.
            • blehn 6y ago
              Stored on different servers in different jurisdictions, right? Sure it's not ideal if you want maximum security of your data, but it _is_ a huge difference from simply storing plain text.
      • domano 6y ago
        I do apologize, i had Threema in my mind and mixed them up.
    • j-james 6y ago
      Telegram's MTProto 2.0 encryption protocol was recently proved correct, but I haven't seen any peer review or discussion on the paper yet. https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.03141 https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.03141
  • seniorivn 6y ago
    not as good in terms of UI/ux but compared to pgp emails much simplier ps telegram is no more secure than Whatsapp unless u use secret chats
  • hiq 6y ago
    Better security, worse UX.
  • kemenaran 6y ago
    IMHO, Signal main advantage is that you can sell it to your parents and friends like "WhatsApp, but safe". It tries to have feature-parity to WhatsApp; looks the same, works the same. All this while researching innovations on cryptography that doesn't compromise user experience too much. In my experience, doing exactly what WhatsApp does (but safer) makes it an easy sell to people around me.
    • alpaca128 6y ago
      True, though Signal annoyingly wants the user to also enable it as SMS app. From my own experience with relatives this can lead to a lot of confusion among non-technical users, for example when they try to send a picture to a contact and it fails because that contact does not use Signal. From what I've seen Signal does not clearly show a difference between those two groups. Other than that it's definitely a great alternative.
  • colordrops 6y ago
    Telegram has had several security and privacy issues in the past. It also stores your messages unencrypted on their server by default.
  • input_sh 6y ago
    Telegram is only end-to-end encrypted in a feature called secret chats. Groups and channels and individual chats are not end-to-end encrypted. In other words, Telegram doesn't even deserve to be in the same conversation. Even if it had the best encryption out there (however you define that), that wouldn't mean anything when it's not used in like 98% of the cases (percentage pulled out of my ass). It's like comparing Signal to Facebook's Messenger, and I'd still say Messenger over Telegram because at least it uses Signal's protocol under the hood (I believe the feature is called hidden conversations) instead of inventing its own thing and ignoring the expert opinions.
    • Siira 6y ago
      Telegram not having e2e by default is a feature; It allows great multi-device usage.
      • input_sh 6y ago
        What kind of multi-device issues do Signal and WhatsApp have exactly? Granted I've never used WhatsApp, but I've been using Signal for like 5 years now on my phone and on my laptop with absolutely no issues.
        • Siira 6y ago
          I don't think you can even use the same Signal account on two different iOS devices, much less desktop. Their desktop apps just link to the phone's app. WhatsApp is a total joke, it loses media (IIRC this includes audio messages as well) people send you after a very short time even when you use it on a single device, so talking about multi-device usage is completely out of the overton window.
        • Jare 6y ago
          WhatsApp does not have multi-device, so technically it has no issues with it. (for any sensible definition of multi-device)
        • alpaca128 6y ago
  • krick 6y ago
    Hardly comparable in terms of usability. But then, WhatsApp isn't that good compared to Telegram either. In fact, I wouldn't use WhatsApp at all if various communities wouldn't host there group-chats I belong to. So I don't think usability has that much to do with your ability to switch. And supposed "security" has almost nothing to do with it whatsoever. So I personally don't even know if I'll keep fighting for my privacy and stuff or if I'm going to give up now. I don't want to, but I honestly don't imagine how on Feb08 I will be telling people who aren't my close friends or co-workers, but communication with whom is really valuable to me, that I refuse to join any WhatsApp group chats anymore, so they will have to notify me about anything important (important to me, in he first place!) personally via SMS, Telegram, email, whatever. Especially now, when people are forced to communicate remotely and stuff gets cancelled/renewed/delayed because of another round of idiotic government regulations, so if I'll fall out of these communities, I'm pretty much left in the vacuum and won't know about anything that happens.
• Evidlo 6y ago
  That's just moving from one silo to another though. Users of centralized services don't have much recourse when the company pulls the rug out from under them.
  • andrewchambers 6y ago
    If the backend is open source then there is recourse.
    • Merman_Mike 6y ago
      .
      • phepranto 6y ago
        https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server
        • johnchristopher 6y ago
          Is there a readymade docker install ?
          • GekkePrutser 6y ago
            There's no point installing it as you can't use it. It's just provided for transparency. Not to run a home server like with matrix.
      • utf_8x 6y ago
        Yes it is: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server Telegram's backend is closed-source.
        • NullPrefix 6y ago
          Yeah, but your instance can't communicate with other Signal server instances, so it's pointless.
• afandian 6y ago
  Last time I tried to use it it on my android didn't work without google play services. And they really bury the apk download, which means it's useless(or heavily discouraged) for people without a google account. (Edit: this is rather a negative comment but its out of frustration -- I want to use it!)
  • utf_8x 6y ago
    The APK is really not that hard to find... https://signal.org/android/apk/ https://signal.org/android/apk/ That page also states "Advanced users with special needs can download the Signal APK directly. Most users should not do this under normal circumstances." which IMO is a very good point. Downloading random APKs from the internet is rarely a good idea...
    • afandian 6y ago
      Yeah you can search for it but it's not obvious from the site. I just think it's a shame that it's touted as open source but they don't appear to have given much thought to the open source demographic. It's not on f-droid.
      • klyrs 6y ago
        It's always been the first hit when I search for "signal apk" from ddg, bing or google
      • spiznnx 6y ago
        They have given it thought, and have purposely decided not to distribute it through f-droid [0]. Yes you have to search for it, but if you are savvy enough to use un-googled android, you will be likely able to find it. 0. https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/9044#issuecomment-534340623 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/9044#issu...
• swiley 6y ago
  Stop promoting services with no federation, they'll just end up in the same spot 10 years from now. EDIT: To the people downvoting this: I said the same thing a long time ago about whatsapp before Facebook bought them.
  • GekkePrutser 6y ago
    Facebook messenger and Google hangouts actually had federation. So even that doesn't mean a lot. However I'd also promote federation-first services like Matrix. Only issue with Matrix is the e2e being so clumsy IMO
  • franga2000 6y ago
    Getting people off of WhatsApp onto Signal means taking power away from a closed platform that makes billions from manipulating its users, which is already a win. Signal is not only not that, but is in fact a completely open non-profit project, so it's basically impossible for it to turn into that. Even moving from Fb to Telegram is an improvement in almost all respects and it's sure as hell a lot easier to do than going straight to Matrix/Riot/whatever it is these days. Don't be a purist and let people have their compromises, lest you end up like the "GNU/" part in front of "Linux".
• seesawtron 6y ago
  Social life is impossible without the mainstream technology. Sure you can find alternatives but if no one uses it other than you, you end up being sidelined. The technology gets enforced and leaves one with no choice but to accept it or be a red flag. Shouldn't it be possible to delete your whatsapp chat and contacts data regularly from the cloud? Eg. one could delete the whatsapp account, clear data on cloud and make a new account again. Having more control over your data stored by Facebook would give more power to the users of enforced by the government.
  • backWardz00 6y ago
    Your mistake is believing those apps are for socializing. They’re for aggregate metrics and attention collecting on the part of the company. I do not have a Facebook empire, Twitter, TikTok or other social media presence. I email academics I can’t visit. I group text friends and family to make plans, and use the calendar built into my phone to remind myself of those events.
    • kace91 6y ago
      In many countries, WhatsApp equals texting, period. No one will use sms, among other things because they're not free (~20 cents per message, character limited, no multimedia). The reality is that WhatsApp is a requirement for social life. Any solution that doesn't start from that point lacks any practicality.
      • backWardz00 6y ago
        HTTPs works with email, email works over data networks. I get social inertia is a thing. Somehow I’ve blown it off and life still works. Summarizing it as “life begins and ends with WhatsApp” seems just as ridiculous to me. Acquiesce and nothing changes. Turn and face the strange.
        • julienb_sea 6y ago
          Or realize the overwhelming majority have no interest in limiting their communication and social network due to "privacy concerns", and already have both a Facebook and Whatsapp account that are connected and sharing data. You can do this if you want, but don't preach it as if most people should care.
• mhd 6y ago
  I don't read a lot about it on HN, but at least the threema client[0] is open-source, too, and the servers are in Switzerland. [0]: https://threema.ch/en/open-source https://threema.ch/en/open-source
  • nalekberov 6y ago
    “Open source” is sold to the people as “you have the most control”, but in reality once your data reaches their end, you have no idea what is deal with it. Open source centralized solution does not an will not solve the problem. They can not.