6 ms·

Yes and this has been my biggest complaint for literally years but whenever I say "Signal needs a top tier backup system asap" I get moaned at with responses li

Yes and this has been my biggest complaint for literally years but whenever I say "Signal needs a top tier backup system asap" I get moaned at with responses like "Signal is a messaging app not email, if you want to backup a message just do that one message." or "Why would you want a whole conversation backup?!" as if I am some weirdo for wanting to have a backup. Does my fucking head in. Yes Signal is about security but that doesn't mean it can't have a functional backup feature! Honestly it needs to be priority number one imho. This bug shows just how important backups and importing conversations are. Whenever I setup Signal on a new system I hate when I see the message "For your security, conversation history isn't transferred to new linked devices." Signal doesn't (or at least shouldn't) get to decide what happens here. If I am having to re-register because of a Signal failure my security is not effected by importing the conversation history as it was there two minutes ago before they corrupted the database. At the very least they should make it an option even if it is disabled by default. Apologies for the ranty nature of this comment but I am fed up with this absolutely pathetic denial that backups are important because it is "just a messaging app". AHHH! Edit: See this reply from when I complained about the lack of backup a month ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25687851 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25687851

capableweb 6y ago
Is it maybe possible that different people have different attack vectors they need to consider and backups are usually a weak-point for some of those people? I understand it's frustrating when a (open source, forkable) application doesn't work the way you want it to, but you have to be able to see it from the other side as well. Signal is signalling that chats are ephemeral and treating them as something else introduces security and privacy issues _in the way they are thinking about it_. It's very possible that's not an issue for you, but that doesn't make Signal wrong, is just make the two of you misaligned on why Signal exists. Signal is not for everyone and I think the team themselves make that pretty clear. Signal is for private and secure communications, and make no compromises that would lower either the privacy or the security, they rather compromise on other ends. These kind of comments show the entitled parts of the internet, where open source software HAS to work a particular way otherwise ITS BROKEN AND HORRIBLE. There are tradeoffs to everything. In this case, Signal made tradeoffs that you feel are wrong. You have a couple of choices, none of them include screaming that Signal should change their priorities based on your opionion: 1) continue using it anyways, start treating chats as ephemeral, 2) try to fork Signal and show us you can do it better or 3) dump Signal for a messenger that works the way you want it to. In the end, there are multiple chat apps, use the right app for the right use case. Signal is definitely not a app for one-size-fits-them-all and it's pretty clear they are not trying to either.
- ximeng 6y ago
  Realistically none of these are very good options. Starting a competitive messenger application is likely to be impossible - Signal got to where it is thanks in large part to 50mn USD from Whatsapp's founder. The fact that it's very difficult means that there aren't a huge number of competitive choices, and none that are "Signal but you can access your data". So even though complaining is not a great option, it might be the most likely way to get what is wanted, whether by someone from Signal seeing the request and agreeing, or someone else seeing there is a market for this. If you have a choice between Whatsapp (metadata not private, but has backup) versus Signal (metadata private but no backup), if you need backup (or anyone you communicate with does), you lose privacy because you're forced to use Whatsapp. Arguably because of Signal's refusal to "compromise" on privacy by allowing backups you have lost privacy anyway.
  - _underfl0w_ 6y ago
    A better option may simply be to fork and add the additional features, not necessarily create a new client.
    - satysin 6y ago
      This raises an interesting question. Can one fork the Signal iOS app, add features then publish to the App Store while using Signals infrastructure?
      - pseudalopex 6y ago
        They changed the license so you can publish forks. They're opposed to forks using Signal's infrastructure though.
      - saurik 6y ago
        If you do this you would not get push notifications.
- satysin 6y ago
  > Is it maybe possible that different people have different attack vectors they need to consider and backups are usually a weak-point for some of those people? If backups are a weak point/risk don't enable the backups then? How is denying it for all a good solution? > Signal is not for everyone and I think the team themselves make that pretty clear. If Signal don't want to be a WhatsApp competitor they need to stop acting like one and jumping on every opportunity to point out how they are not Facebook/are better than WhatsApp. All I have seen from Signal on social media for the past month is how they are the perfect alternative to WhatsApp. Signal has disappearing messages so if a sender doesn't want their messages captured in a backup they can easily get that. Of course that doesn't stop the recipient exporting that one message or even just taking a screenshot so it isn't perfect but better than nothing. > These kind of comments show the entitled parts of the internet Comments like this piss me off. It is not "entitled" to want to protect my data. I have been telling people to protect their data for the twenty years I have worked in IT. But now for chat conversations apparently backups are pointless and we shouldn't be doing them??? Come on. This flies in the face of literally two plus decades of the tech community pushing for "normal people" to do backups!
ximeng 6y ago
Not allowing backup as you should be using email for things that are important is really a circular argument. If you can't even choose to backup / analyse with your own tools then you won't ever use chat for anything important. Ever since losing chat history moving phones with Signal I've been less inclined to use it overall.
- dannyw 6y ago
  +1. Switched from iPhone to Android, lost my message history. There were important content there stretching years that I wanted to preserve. Now, it is all lost.
XorNot 6y ago
Really I just want Signal to play my messaging history off to just regular files. I can plug those into Syncthing and have them head off to my server or whatever. Just document the format so I can decrypt them with some tool to recover them later.
- satysin 6y ago
  Yeah I honestly don't care how they do it. I just want to export an encrypted blob with a passphrase and import it when needed. Store it on my device so I have to manually move it or store it on iCloud or some other cloud service. I don't care I just want the option to backup and restore!
  - jfim 6y ago
    Not sure about iOS, but on Android it's in settings > chats > chat backup and it creates a backup periodically if enabled. When reinstalling signal one can point it at the backup and enter the code to restore messages.
    - satysin 6y ago
      Unfortunately I am on iOS where there is no such functionality :( Kind of makes it worse in a way as it clearly shows they do care about backups just not doing it consistently.
tw04 6y ago
Oh my gosh, you and me both. I'm so tired of the lame excuse that it's a "secure messaging platform". If the mindset were truly that having a copy of the message was insecure, why wouldn't they just set every chat to expire? Because it turns out people want a balance between security and functionality. IOS has had filesystem access for going on 2 years now, there's literally no excuse beyond laziness for not letting us backup and restore the signal messages. I don't even care if it gets dumped into an insecure format if that's the only way it works. I'm far more concerned with someone intercepting my messages in-flight than any other vector. If someone has a backdoor on the phone itself, one signal backup is the least of my worries. Ignoring the fact that backup would be optional. Incorporate SMS (with a red background or something obvious that the chat is insecure), incorporate backup, and just fully embrace being a messaging app. If they do that they'll make the world universally more secure because it will increase adoption 100 fold. I'll have a lot easier time convincing my dad to use signal if I don't have to try to walk him through "well when you're texting grandma, use this app, and when you're texting me, use this app".
- vageli 6y ago
  > Incorporate SMS (with a red background or something obvious that the chat is insecure), incorporate backup, and just fully embrace being a messaging app. If they do that they'll make the world universally more secure because it will increase adoption 100 fold. I'll have a lot easier time convincing my dad to use signal if I don't have to try to walk him through "well when you're texting grandma, use this app, and when you're texting me, use this app". You can already use SMS from within the Signal app on mobile. On desktop it makes sense that there is no SMS feature, unless you want to use the desktop client to send SMS from your phone (like Android messaging), or you want Signal to operate an SMS gateway?
  - omnimus 6y ago
    Signal already does SMS on Android but on iOS thats forbidden so you can't replace SMS app. Quite convenient for Apple because same SMS app by default supports their imessages :))
  - tw04 6y ago
andix 6y ago
I totally agree. That's the only big drawback I currently see with signal. I would even be satisfied if i can regularly backup messages to plaintext. I like to keep my messages and be able to look up stuff later. If I don't want to keep the log i switch on self deleting messages, which is quite cool.
lhl 6y ago
Signal (just iOS strangely; Android has had exporting for years) has been completely anti-backup basically since it's inception. That's their prerogative, but I think it's something that needs to be made clear, front and center, before anyone starts using Signal (or asking anyone else to use Signal). Signal is the type of messaging that needs to be treated as a black hole. Here's issue #905 from 2015, a request for transferring messages when moving phones, closed the same day: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-iOS/issues/905 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-iOS/issues/905 Similarly, #967 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-iOS/issues/967 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-iOS/issues/967 And #2542 (2017, when I was first looking for transferring my Signal to a new phone) https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-iOS/issues/2542 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-iOS/issues/2542 That issue was locked and I was told to create a thread on their forum instead: https://whispersystems.discoursehosting.net/t/ios-backup-keeping-message-history-when-switching-phones/1736 https://whispersystems.discoursehosting.net/t/ios-backup-kee... - 3.5 years and 400+ messages later, backup functionality still doesn't exist for iOS, and the best solution for archiving your old messages requires jailbreaking and extracting encryption keys from your keychain: https://cight.co/backup-signal-ios-jailbreak/ https://cight.co/backup-signal-ios-jailbreak/ NOTE: last year, Signal introduced functionality for transferring messages to a new device, but that won't help you from data corruption or losing your device since backups and export are still not supported: https://signal.org/blog/ios-device-transfer/ https://signal.org/blog/ios-device-transfer/

capableweb 6y ago

Is it maybe possible that different people have different attack vectors they need to consider and backups are usually a weak-point for some of those people? I understand it's frustrating when a (open source, forkable) application doesn't work the way you want it to, but you have to be able to see it from the other side as well. Signal is signalling that chats are ephemeral and treating them as something else introduces security and privacy issues _in the way they are thinking about it_. It's very possible that's not an issue for you, but that doesn't make Signal wrong, is just make the two of you misaligned on why Signal exists. Signal is not for everyone and I think the team themselves make that pretty clear. Signal is for private and secure communications, and make no compromises that would lower either the privacy or the security, they rather compromise on other ends. These kind of comments show the entitled parts of the internet, where open source software HAS to work a particular way otherwise ITS BROKEN AND HORRIBLE. There are tradeoffs to everything. In this case, Signal made tradeoffs that you feel are wrong. You have a couple of choices, none of them include screaming that Signal should change their priorities based on your opionion: 1) continue using it anyways, start treating chats as ephemeral, 2) try to fork Signal and show us you can do it better or 3) dump Signal for a messenger that works the way you want it to. In the end, there are multiple chat apps, use the right app for the right use case. Signal is definitely not a app for one-size-fits-them-all and it's pretty clear they are not trying to either.

ximeng 6y ago
Realistically none of these are very good options. Starting a competitive messenger application is likely to be impossible - Signal got to where it is thanks in large part to 50mn USD from Whatsapp's founder. The fact that it's very difficult means that there aren't a huge number of competitive choices, and none that are "Signal but you can access your data". So even though complaining is not a great option, it might be the most likely way to get what is wanted, whether by someone from Signal seeing the request and agreeing, or someone else seeing there is a market for this. If you have a choice between Whatsapp (metadata not private, but has backup) versus Signal (metadata private but no backup), if you need backup (or anyone you communicate with does), you lose privacy because you're forced to use Whatsapp. Arguably because of Signal's refusal to "compromise" on privacy by allowing backups you have lost privacy anyway.
- _underfl0w_ 6y ago
  A better option may simply be to fork and add the additional features, not necessarily create a new client.
  - satysin 6y ago
    This raises an interesting question. Can one fork the Signal iOS app, add features then publish to the App Store while using Signals infrastructure?
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      They changed the license so you can publish forks. They're opposed to forks using Signal's infrastructure though.
    - saurik 6y ago
      If you do this you would not get push notifications.
satysin 6y ago
> Is it maybe possible that different people have different attack vectors they need to consider and backups are usually a weak-point for some of those people? If backups are a weak point/risk don't enable the backups then? How is denying it for all a good solution? > Signal is not for everyone and I think the team themselves make that pretty clear. If Signal don't want to be a WhatsApp competitor they need to stop acting like one and jumping on every opportunity to point out how they are not Facebook/are better than WhatsApp. All I have seen from Signal on social media for the past month is how they are the perfect alternative to WhatsApp. Signal has disappearing messages so if a sender doesn't want their messages captured in a backup they can easily get that. Of course that doesn't stop the recipient exporting that one message or even just taking a screenshot so it isn't perfect but better than nothing. > These kind of comments show the entitled parts of the internet Comments like this piss me off. It is not "entitled" to want to protect my data. I have been telling people to protect their data for the twenty years I have worked in IT. But now for chat conversations apparently backups are pointless and we shouldn't be doing them??? Come on. This flies in the face of literally two plus decades of the tech community pushing for "normal people" to do backups!

ximeng 6y ago

Not allowing backup as you should be using email for things that are important is really a circular argument. If you can't even choose to backup / analyse with your own tools then you won't ever use chat for anything important. Ever since losing chat history moving phones with Signal I've been less inclined to use it overall.

dannyw 6y ago
+1. Switched from iPhone to Android, lost my message history. There were important content there stretching years that I wanted to preserve. Now, it is all lost.

XorNot 6y ago

Really I just want Signal to play my messaging history off to just regular files. I can plug those into Syncthing and have them head off to my server or whatever. Just document the format so I can decrypt them with some tool to recover them later.

satysin 6y ago
Yeah I honestly don't care how they do it. I just want to export an encrypted blob with a passphrase and import it when needed. Store it on my device so I have to manually move it or store it on iCloud or some other cloud service. I don't care I just want the option to backup and restore!
- jfim 6y ago
  Not sure about iOS, but on Android it's in settings > chats > chat backup and it creates a backup periodically if enabled. When reinstalling signal one can point it at the backup and enter the code to restore messages.
  - satysin 6y ago
    Unfortunately I am on iOS where there is no such functionality :( Kind of makes it worse in a way as it clearly shows they do care about backups just not doing it consistently.

tw04 6y ago

Oh my gosh, you and me both. I'm so tired of the lame excuse that it's a "secure messaging platform". If the mindset were truly that having a copy of the message was insecure, why wouldn't they just set every chat to expire? Because it turns out people want a balance between security and functionality. IOS has had filesystem access for going on 2 years now, there's literally no excuse beyond laziness for not letting us backup and restore the signal messages. I don't even care if it gets dumped into an insecure format if that's the only way it works. I'm far more concerned with someone intercepting my messages in-flight than any other vector. If someone has a backdoor on the phone itself, one signal backup is the least of my worries. Ignoring the fact that backup would be optional. Incorporate SMS (with a red background or something obvious that the chat is insecure), incorporate backup, and just fully embrace being a messaging app. If they do that they'll make the world universally more secure because it will increase adoption 100 fold. I'll have a lot easier time convincing my dad to use signal if I don't have to try to walk him through "well when you're texting grandma, use this app, and when you're texting me, use this app".

vageli 6y ago
> Incorporate SMS (with a red background or something obvious that the chat is insecure), incorporate backup, and just fully embrace being a messaging app. If they do that they'll make the world universally more secure because it will increase adoption 100 fold. I'll have a lot easier time convincing my dad to use signal if I don't have to try to walk him through "well when you're texting grandma, use this app, and when you're texting me, use this app". You can already use SMS from within the Signal app on mobile. On desktop it makes sense that there is no SMS feature, unless you want to use the desktop client to send SMS from your phone (like Android messaging), or you want Signal to operate an SMS gateway?
- omnimus 6y ago
  Signal already does SMS on Android but on iOS thats forbidden so you can't replace SMS app. Quite convenient for Apple because same SMS app by default supports their imessages :))
- tw04 6y ago

andix 6y ago

I totally agree. That's the only big drawback I currently see with signal. I would even be satisfied if i can regularly backup messages to plaintext. I like to keep my messages and be able to look up stuff later. If I don't want to keep the log i switch on self deleting messages, which is quite cool.

lhl 6y ago

Signal (just iOS strangely; Android has had exporting for years) has been completely anti-backup basically since it's inception. That's their prerogative, but I think it's something that needs to be made clear, front and center, before anyone starts using Signal (or asking anyone else to use Signal). Signal is the type of messaging that needs to be treated as a black hole. Here's issue #905 from 2015, a request for transferring messages when moving phones, closed the same day: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-iOS/issues/905 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-iOS/issues/905 Similarly, #967 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-iOS/issues/967 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-iOS/issues/967 And #2542 (2017, when I was first looking for transferring my Signal to a new phone) https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-iOS/issues/2542 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-iOS/issues/2542 That issue was locked and I was told to create a thread on their forum instead: https://whispersystems.discoursehosting.net/t/ios-backup-keeping-message-history-when-switching-phones/1736 https://whispersystems.discoursehosting.net/t/ios-backup-kee... - 3.5 years and 400+ messages later, backup functionality still doesn't exist for iOS, and the best solution for archiving your old messages requires jailbreaking and extracting encryption keys from your keychain: https://cight.co/backup-signal-ios-jailbreak/ https://cight.co/backup-signal-ios-jailbreak/ NOTE: last year, Signal introduced functionality for transferring messages to a new device, but that won't help you from data corruption or losing your device since backups and export are still not supported: https://signal.org/blog/ios-device-transfer/ https://signal.org/blog/ios-device-transfer/