23 ms·

Not dang but probably > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.

by ro_bit 6y ago

nalekberov 6y ago
lol i have no idea what to with that in this context.
- ro_bit 6y ago
  When Signal says your data belongs in your hands, they are referencing the end to end encryption in the app, which means that any of your data that goes through their servers is encrypted and can't be read by them. This can be verified by people partaking in a Signal message through the use of their safety numbers and through building the app from their published source that you can verify only ever sends your encrypted data to Signal servers. It's true that we can never be sure what's in Signal's backend but we can also prove that anything we send to their backend can't be read by them regardless of its design.
  - nalekberov 6y ago
    Your data is not limited to your messages. Who do you talk to, how many times, when, where, your social graph, when you go online, how frequently you are online, what avatar you have etc. etc. And remember you are authorizing yourself with your number, which is for most people is valid identifying point, and can be used to trace back to individuals. While Signal claims phone numbers are hashed and never used for any real identification purposes and whatsoever, I think this is still very questionable. They could easily design the system to allow one to authorize with username from the beginning. I don't wanna go into much details, but I personally will never take anything Signal tells for granted for two main reasons, first it's centralized (it's doesn't matter if it's owned by non-profit organization), second it's operated in the USA, meaning they are bound to cooperate with intelligence agencies when they have to.
- dang 6y ago
  You edited your GP comment after I replied to it, to remove the place where you had broken the site guidelines. Sometimes people do that to make the mods look bad, but I'm going to assume you didn't do it for that reason. Please don't do it again, or at least not without explaining to the reader that you did. That holds whether the other commenter is a mod or not. It's just good manners. Also, please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait to HN (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25696652 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25696652). We're trying for something different on this site, especially now.
  - nalekberov 6y ago
    My bad. I edited my comment. Nothing intentionally, just realized my comment was not actually appropriate for the context. Regarding your second point, I agree it was not substantive, noted.
    - dang 6y ago
      Appreciated!

Not dang but probably > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.

by ro_bit 6y ago

Not dang but probably > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.

nalekberov 6y ago

lol i have no idea what to with that in this context.

ro_bit 6y ago
When Signal says your data belongs in your hands, they are referencing the end to end encryption in the app, which means that any of your data that goes through their servers is encrypted and can't be read by them. This can be verified by people partaking in a Signal message through the use of their safety numbers and through building the app from their published source that you can verify only ever sends your encrypted data to Signal servers. It's true that we can never be sure what's in Signal's backend but we can also prove that anything we send to their backend can't be read by them regardless of its design.
- nalekberov 6y ago
  Your data is not limited to your messages. Who do you talk to, how many times, when, where, your social graph, when you go online, how frequently you are online, what avatar you have etc. etc. And remember you are authorizing yourself with your number, which is for most people is valid identifying point, and can be used to trace back to individuals. While Signal claims phone numbers are hashed and never used for any real identification purposes and whatsoever, I think this is still very questionable. They could easily design the system to allow one to authorize with username from the beginning. I don't wanna go into much details, but I personally will never take anything Signal tells for granted for two main reasons, first it's centralized (it's doesn't matter if it's owned by non-profit organization), second it's operated in the USA, meaning they are bound to cooperate with intelligence agencies when they have to.
dang 6y ago
You edited your GP comment after I replied to it, to remove the place where you had broken the site guidelines. Sometimes people do that to make the mods look bad, but I'm going to assume you didn't do it for that reason. Please don't do it again, or at least not without explaining to the reader that you did. That holds whether the other commenter is a mod or not. It's just good manners. Also, please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait to HN (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25696652 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25696652). We're trying for something different on this site, especially now.
- nalekberov 6y ago
  My bad. I edited my comment. Nothing intentionally, just realized my comment was not actually appropriate for the context. Regarding your second point, I agree it was not substantive, noted.
  - dang 6y ago
    Appreciated!