6 ms·

Why does it need your phone number? Seems pretty weird for a “secure” program. And why does it use AWS? Isn’t that subject to all kinds of privacy risks includi

by Jkvngt 6y ago

Why does it need your phone number? Seems pretty weird for a “secure” program. And why does it use AWS? Isn’t that subject to all kinds of privacy risks including National Security Letters? Why isn’t Signal just a Free and open source, infrastructure-less p2p solution? Maybe the goal isn’t really security or privacy after all...

sgtnoodle 6y ago
It seems like the phone number is used mainly for matching you up to your contacts, and secondarily used for a first level of authentication. Signal has always encouraged independent verification of folks' public keys for sensitive communication. Whether or not AWS is risky, I don't think signal has any increased risk hosting their infrastructure on it vs. any other service. The whole point is that comms are end-to-end encrypted from handset to handset, and so any data in Amazon's hands is encrypted.
- Jkvngt 6y ago
  Seems like using a phone number as an account identifier is a huge risk to privacy. Has Rosenfeld admitted this? It’s just weird to require a phone number unless you’re talking about some big tech botnet like Facebook or Google.
  - irscott 6y ago
    The Rosenfeld stuff is weird, man.
    - Jkvngt 6y ago
      Yeah I had to actually look up his name. Kinda shady.
Kalium 6y ago
> Why does it need your phone number? Great question! It's a good way to make it easy for general-purpose users with limited technical expertise to adopt, use, and find one another. > Seems pretty weird for a “secure” program. You're right! It's definitely weird, but it's also understandable as a tradeoff in favor of less technically adept users. It's not one I'm in love with, but I think it makes sense. > And why does it use AWS? Isn’t that subject to all kinds of privacy risks including National Security Letters? The risk from NSLs depends a lot on what is hosted. If it's opaquely encrypted blobs, there's minimal risk. And where could things be hosted that wouldn't be subject to privacy risks from a government of some sort? > Why isn’t Signal just a Free and open source, infrastructure-less p2p solution? That's such a good idea that Signal is already a Free and open source solution! That said, nothing is ever actually infrastructure-less, just like no data store is actually schema-less. There's just explicit infrastructure and implicit infrastructure. Implicit p2p infrastructure is not immune to governments or NSLs, and is often subject to more by virtue of being in more countries.
- Jkvngt 6y ago
  > Great question! It's a good way to make it easy for general-purpose users with limited technical expertise to adopt, use, and find one another. Don’t patronize me you glib shill. There is no reason beyond tracking and surveillance to require a phone number. Rosenfeld’s admitted this already in a roundabout way and has claimed they’re “working on” not needing a phone number. Any dissident could end up dead if they trust big tech with their phone number.
  - Kalium 6y ago
    Discoverability, familiarity, and usability are good reasons that many find convincing. I understand that some people might disagree. Personal insults aren't called for. Please stop.
    - Jkvngt 6y ago
      There's no reason to post in the fashion of a glib marketing department person if you're not. And I don't think ANYBODY finds requiring a phone number "because it's discoverable, familiar, usable" is convincing especially when considering that dissidents are apparently one of the major groups this is marketed to. The whole thing smells funny, there's no reason to require a phone number other than Rosendfeld WANTS it.
      - int_19h 6y ago
        How many casual users have you personally convinced to switch to some E2E-encrypted messaging app?
      - detaro 6y ago
        The major group Signal wants to market to is normal people, and they've stated repeatedly that they optimize for that over maximum security with what they consider worse usability. And even though I disagree with the focus on phone numbers and wish they'd prioritized a model that makes them optional, I do understand the network effect argument for including it. Kind of annoying that the alternatives that do it better have a hard time, but I also have to admit that it proves Moxies point to a degree.
goatsi 6y ago
Using phone numbers as identifiers for encrypted messages is the core feature of Signal. It was marketed from day one as a drop in SMS replacement. Initially it even used SMS as the transport for encrypted messages. It was literally called "TextSecure". You can find any number of infrastructure-less p2p solutions. The number of users they have compared to Signal might be illuminating.
catkitcourt 6y ago
Quick answer: Find the right one to blame, please. If you think that, just by making authorities know your phone number is registered on Signal is dangerous enough for you to be arrested, you should not use Signal. Signal, like any other software, can not solve political, or dictatorship. Signal is a chat app, not a magical tool, even if it is helpful for those objectives. That's what we mean when we says "security is layered". So, if your government have unlimited resources (that is to say, they can simply arrest and sentence you if they *think* you *may* using Signal, Telegram, Whatsapp, Tox chat, ..., without judicial review), then maybe Signal is not your biggest problem.

by Jkvngt 6y ago

sgtnoodle 6y ago

It seems like the phone number is used mainly for matching you up to your contacts, and secondarily used for a first level of authentication. Signal has always encouraged independent verification of folks' public keys for sensitive communication. Whether or not AWS is risky, I don't think signal has any increased risk hosting their infrastructure on it vs. any other service. The whole point is that comms are end-to-end encrypted from handset to handset, and so any data in Amazon's hands is encrypted.

Jkvngt 6y ago
Seems like using a phone number as an account identifier is a huge risk to privacy. Has Rosenfeld admitted this? It’s just weird to require a phone number unless you’re talking about some big tech botnet like Facebook or Google.
- irscott 6y ago
  The Rosenfeld stuff is weird, man.
  - Jkvngt 6y ago
    Yeah I had to actually look up his name. Kinda shady.

Kalium 6y ago

> Why does it need your phone number? Great question! It's a good way to make it easy for general-purpose users with limited technical expertise to adopt, use, and find one another. > Seems pretty weird for a “secure” program. You're right! It's definitely weird, but it's also understandable as a tradeoff in favor of less technically adept users. It's not one I'm in love with, but I think it makes sense. > And why does it use AWS? Isn’t that subject to all kinds of privacy risks including National Security Letters? The risk from NSLs depends a lot on what is hosted. If it's opaquely encrypted blobs, there's minimal risk. And where could things be hosted that wouldn't be subject to privacy risks from a government of some sort? > Why isn’t Signal just a Free and open source, infrastructure-less p2p solution? That's such a good idea that Signal is already a Free and open source solution! That said, nothing is ever actually infrastructure-less, just like no data store is actually schema-less. There's just explicit infrastructure and implicit infrastructure. Implicit p2p infrastructure is not immune to governments or NSLs, and is often subject to more by virtue of being in more countries.

Jkvngt 6y ago
> Great question! It's a good way to make it easy for general-purpose users with limited technical expertise to adopt, use, and find one another. Don’t patronize me you glib shill. There is no reason beyond tracking and surveillance to require a phone number. Rosenfeld’s admitted this already in a roundabout way and has claimed they’re “working on” not needing a phone number. Any dissident could end up dead if they trust big tech with their phone number.
- Kalium 6y ago
  Discoverability, familiarity, and usability are good reasons that many find convincing. I understand that some people might disagree. Personal insults aren't called for. Please stop.
  - Jkvngt 6y ago
    There's no reason to post in the fashion of a glib marketing department person if you're not. And I don't think ANYBODY finds requiring a phone number "because it's discoverable, familiar, usable" is convincing especially when considering that dissidents are apparently one of the major groups this is marketed to. The whole thing smells funny, there's no reason to require a phone number other than Rosendfeld WANTS it.
    - int_19h 6y ago
      How many casual users have you personally convinced to switch to some E2E-encrypted messaging app?
    - detaro 6y ago
      The major group Signal wants to market to is normal people, and they've stated repeatedly that they optimize for that over maximum security with what they consider worse usability. And even though I disagree with the focus on phone numbers and wish they'd prioritized a model that makes them optional, I do understand the network effect argument for including it. Kind of annoying that the alternatives that do it better have a hard time, but I also have to admit that it proves Moxies point to a degree.

goatsi 6y ago

Using phone numbers as identifiers for encrypted messages is the core feature of Signal. It was marketed from day one as a drop in SMS replacement. Initially it even used SMS as the transport for encrypted messages. It was literally called "TextSecure". You can find any number of infrastructure-less p2p solutions. The number of users they have compared to Signal might be illuminating.

catkitcourt 6y ago

Quick answer: Find the right one to blame, please. If you think that, just by making authorities know your phone number is registered on Signal is dangerous enough for you to be arrested, you should not use Signal. Signal, like any other software, can not solve political, or dictatorship. Signal is a chat app, not a magical tool, even if it is helpful for those objectives. That's what we mean when we says "security is layered". So, if your government have unlimited resources (that is to say, they can simply arrest and sentence you if they *think* you *may* using Signal, Telegram, Whatsapp, Tox chat, ..., without judicial review), then maybe Signal is not your biggest problem.