28 ms·
Leaked phone number of Mark Zuckerberg reveals he is on Signal
- learningwebdev 6y agoI would have thought that Mark of all people would have complete faith in the privacy of Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp. Very curious indeed.
- sushid 6y agoI would imagine Mark of all people to at least do some amount of competitive analysis. It's like being surprised Elon test drove a BMW i3.
- learningwebdev 6y agoI was only joking but you have made a valid point.
- antonvs 6y agoIf Elon test drove a BMW i3, we'd be hearing about it direct from him via a snarky tweet.
- codethief 6y agoHmmm… $ curl -s https://elonmusk.today/ | grep BMW $ :(
- justjonathan 6y agoWithout regard to the security of any of the protocols, Zucj may have just installed to play with it.
- ncmncm 6y agoHe is probably aware that other Facebook employees can crack into Whatsapp traffic at will. It might be unwise to be caught doing it to his account; and probably best to make it look like it was somebody else doing it.
- avh02 6y agoWe're going to need a citation for this claim
- ncmncm 6y agoIs that a threat? Who is "we"? Obviously I have no way to show you Facebook proprietary source code, but equally obviously Facebook can make their code do anything they like, including MITMing on an account-by-account basis. That is always true when all the code in use is controlled by a single closed organization.
- avh02 6y ago> Is that a threat? Who is "we"? Nope, just an expectation that sweeping claims get backed up either by reasoning (like you just did) or a source As for your reasoning vs your claim: you had made it seem like there was some well-known flaw or tool within FB to disable/intercept E2E. Or that we should expect an E2E-disabler functionality already exists. I'm no FB developer, but I doubt it's as simple as one or two rogue developers adding in an "intercept mark's messages" functionality. > That is always true when all the code in use is controlled by a single closed organization. Fair enough, but FB/whatsapp messengers are probably some of the most scrutinized by third parties, as well as developers who would sooner or later blow the whistle (would hope so anyway). I would not take "mark is on signal so his messengers suck" to be a reasonable conclusion - and I'm not even FB's biggest fan.
- ncmncm 6y agoDo you imagine it is even possible that FB has not yet been served a National Security letter demanding backdoor access, on demand, to any WA account of the spooks' choice? Or that there would be any technical difficulty in complying with such an order?
- yunesj 6y agoMaybe he trusts FB, but has some friends that use Signal.
- darig 6y agoOr it could be that someone else in his address book is on Signal and gave the app permission to add him from their address book as a ghost account. Isn't that annoying when apps do that, Zark?
- throwawaysea 6y agoMaybe he has friends who are only on Signal that he talks to?
- todd3834 6y agoIs it really surprising that he would have all of the most popular messaging apps? Facebook’s playbook of copying popular features from apps gaining traction is by no means a secret. I’m not totally convinced by the narrative that Mark doesn’t trust his own tools so he prefers Signal.
- deadmutex 6y agoYeah, it is likely that he was just checking up on the competition. I wouldn't be surprised if turned the narrative on this by saying something like the following: "I was curious to check it out.. it wasn't very good, so I reverted back to Messenger/Whatsapp." IIRC, he made similar comments when he was spotted using G+. Disclaimer: My views are my own (and not necessarily shared by my employers).
- uoaei 6y agoIt doesn't seem like you are aware that WhatsApp hired Moxie Marlinspike, the creator of the Signal encryption protocol, to re-implement it for WhatsApp. AFAIK it is still used in WhatsApp today. I will take this moment also to mention that "re-implement" isn't exactly right in that they modified the protocol slightly to allow for someone in control of the administration server to change a user's private key without their knowing, so that the admin can decrypt the E2E communications using the known key.
- 7a1c9427 6y ago> I will take this moment also to mention that "re-implement" isn't exactly right in that they modified the protocol slightly to allow for someone in control of the administration server to change a user's private key without their knowing, so that the admin can decrypt the E2E communications using the known key. Do you have a source for that claim?
- secfirstmd 6y agoYeh that's a big claim. Love to know source
- senectus1 6y agothis is not surprising. most "influential" people like business leaders, politicians, reporters, A listers are on signal.
- kube-system 6y agoIsn’t a bit of a privacy flaw that signal exposes who uses the app by phone number?
- devwastaken 6y agoIt is. Its also a security issue - Phone numbers aren't unique. It was interesting seeing signal say my deceased father was 'on signal', it's just the same number recycled to someone else.
- herpderperator 6y agoI think unique has a specific meaning in your context which isn't what the standard definition of unique means. There are never two people in a carrier's database assigned to the same number. It can however be assigned to another person as long as it is deassigned from the previous person. The number, at any point, is always unique.
- Karsteski 6y agoHow so? I don't find it violating in any way that someone knows that I'm using a messenging app due to my phone number. They aren't exactly private in the first place. It would be the same if there were usernames, although those would be far harder to assign to a person. Thankfully, Signal is working on that feature and hopefully it's released soon. I'd like to one day not have any phone number at all. It's a system that feels very much antiquated...
- Havoc 6y agoThese days you need basically all the message apps anyway unless your circle of friends is super homogenous
- smelendez 6y agoI mean, I think it would be reasonable for Zuckerberg's friends to assume that he wouldn't want to use a competing product? Nobody would be offended if the CEO of Coca-Cola declined a can of pepsi.
- headmelted 6y agoThe CEO of Pepsi might.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- woutr_be 6y agoThat is if all your friends live in the same country, I have quite a few friends all over the world, and especially in Asia, people prefer specific apps. For friends in China it's WeChat, for Japan it's LINE. Other friends use Facebook, my family uses WhatsApp. Here in HK it's a mix between WhatsApp, Telegram or Signal.
- sorokod 6y agoPerhaps he liked what he found. "So he put his tongue in, and took a large lick. “Yes,” he said, “it is. no doubt about that. And honey, I should say, right down to the bottom of the jar. Unless, of course,” he said, “somebody put cheese in at the bottom just for a joke. Perhaps I had better go a little further... just in case...” - Winnie the pooh, Chapter 5 in which Piglet meets a Heffalump
- modeitsch 6y agoEveryone has something that they want to hide and absolutely people like Mark
- decrypt 6y agoI sent Mark a message yesterday on Signal. It was "delivered" but not "read", obviously. Today, I don't see that contact as a Signal user anymore. I see a "Invite to Signal" button on that conversation view. Guess he deleted the account?
- Daviey 6y agoIt was me that originally shared he had a Signal account. But I didn't send him a message, because frankly - I had nothing to say to him. I am curious, what did send to him? Also, do you often send messages to people you don't know via chat apps linked to phone numbers?
- pulkitanand 6y ago> Also, do you often send messages to people you don't know via chat apps linked to phone numbers? Haha, thanks for the chuckle.
- mamon 6y agoProbably changed the phone number after it had been leaked.
- Uberphallus 6y agoI sent him one on WhatsApp, it was read, but didn't reply. Now they don't arrive anymore. I guess he blocked me?
- tail_exchange 6y agoDamn, I really missed the opportunity to send him "Oh, hi Mark!".
- progx 6y agoZuckerberg is a pro, he knows what is good ;-)
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoHow dare you suggest Mark Zuckerberg is a hypocrite after said "Privacy is no longer a social norm", and then bought all houses surrounding his one. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/11/facebook-privacy https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/11/facebook-... https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-buys-4-homes-for-privacy-2013-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-buys-4-homes...
- mam2 6y agobecause 1 is not an opinion but a fact. and probably a fact he probably disagree with, like you people don't care about privacy but it's not exactly his fault. then his job is to capitalize on it. why would he care. you would probably do the same ..
- Milner08 6y agoI would definitely not do the same and its not a fact. Plenty of people value their privacy they are just not as tech savvy and not aware that they are giving it up.
- nirv 6y agoIt's definitely not a fact, but rather an argument. Non-technical people within my circle appreciate GDPR. They fall into recent Apple's privacy advertising, FWIW. Many of my non-IT business peers have moved to private email services long ago — e.g. Protonmail, Mailbox.org, Fastmail, etc. — regardless of Google's Eric Schmidt[1] anti-privacy stance back in the day. Almost everyone I constantly communicate with use Telegram, and privacy of comms (FWIW) was among selling points at the time of switching the IM. I won't exaggerate the value of privacy for a general public. But since Snowden's publications, Cambridge Analytica scandal and GDPR discussion with a widespread media coverage, common citizens became much more privacy-concerned, at least in Europe. Below I quote highlights from the recent FRA (EU Agency for Fundamental Rights) survey report "Your rights matter: Data protection and privacy - Fundamental Rights Survey", June 2020[2]: > 41% do not want to share any personal data with private companies, almost double the number compared to public bodies; > the type of personal data influences people’s willingness to share. Only around 5% want to share their facial images or fingerprints with private companies; > 72% know the privacy settings on their smart phones. But 24% do not know how to check the privacy settings on their apps; > 55% fear criminals or fraudsters accessing their personal data. Around 30% worry about advertisers, businesses and foreign governments’ access to information without them knowing; > 33% do not read the terms and conditions when using online services compared with 22% who always read them; > 69% know about the GDPR. A similar number know their national data protection supervisory authority (71%); > only 51% are aware that they can access their personal data held by companies. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-dismisses-privacy https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmid... [2] https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2020-fundamental-rights-survey-data-protection-privacy_en.pdf https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-20... (PDF)
- gtsop 6y agoFunny comments, but jokes aside, I think we're missing a very obvious reason why he has signal. Mark most likely has contacts that are super high up in governments and coorporations who use signal since they can't trust any other app. People who say that he just tested out competition, I think you guys underestimate his technological knowledge and his resources waaay too much. If he wanted to do that he could have easily ordered someone to get him a clean phone with a sim card not linked to his name and let that device sit on his desk for testing.
- wunderflix 6y agoMaybe. And maybe he’s there because he is a smart lad who knows which products to monitor closely. After all he bought Instagram and WhatsApp for peanuts, and copied the best features of SnapChat.
- christophilus 6y agoTo me, this is the obvious answer.
- JeremyNT 6y agoHe wouldn't need to use his real number/name just to do product research though. It would just needlessly confuse any contacts who have his actual number and use signal. Signal also has nothing he can emulate. Its most meaningful selling point is that it doesn't have an association or integration with a scummy social media company, and people using it for that reason are already lost to Facebook. This is a feature he cannot ever hope to copy.
- Closi 6y ago> Signal also has nothing he can emulate. Its most meaningful selling point is that it doesn't have an association or integration with a scummy social media company, and people using it for that reason are already lost to Facebook. This is a feature he cannot ever hope to copy. Even if there is nothing to emulate, downloading the app at least gives him a feel for how close it is to WhatsApp's capabilities and would help him understand if it is a major competitive threat or not.
- cocoggu 6y agoIt would have been weird if he didn't have any account on the competitors platforms. You want to check the features they offer, the UX... This article didn't say anything about how often he is using it.
- chadash 6y agoThis isn’t a story. I’ve installed competitors’ apps many times to see what they are like. Doesnt even mean that I use them beyond seeing what they are like. And even so, not a big deal if you occasionally use a competitor.
- guidingtunnel 6y agoHere is the original tweet: https://twitter.com/Daviey/status/1378646544719753216 https://twitter.com/Daviey/status/1378646544719753216
- whywhywhywhy 6y agoI'll never understand the concept of a privacy focused messaging app that uses your phone number.
- maxerickson 6y agoGoing to signal from other messengers replaces unknown/hard to reason about privacy issues with a single easy to reason about issue. The idea was to do that for the broad group of people using messengers on their phones.
- root_axis 6y agoThe original design goal of signal was a secure alternative to SMS. The use of phone numbers and is core to this philosophy.
- astatine 6y agoBut naturally! He is worried about his internal IT team getting access to his own messages, like the Register's BOFH[0] /s [0] https://www.theregister.com/offbeat/bofh/ https://www.theregister.com/offbeat/bofh/
- exabrial 6y agoHere's the issue with Silicon Valley companies: Consent Do you consent to be tracked? Doesn't matter we're going to do it anyway. And we're going to make a s** ton of money off of it. Do you consent to having your location tracked? Doesn't matter we'll figure it out anyway and we're still going to sell it. Do you not want an online ordering system? Too bad you're getting one anyway and we'll have robots harass your employees with phone calls. Move fast and break things simply means do unethical things before regulators catch up to you.
- tapoxi 6y agoWhy is this surprising? Wouldn't you want to be using a competitor's product to know what it's like?
- michaelcampbell 6y agoPrivacy for me but not for thee.
- modeitsch 6y agohe deleted is signal account already
- stjohnswarts 6y agoOf course he is. He's a lot of things but he's not an idiot and using Messenger for private convos.