4 ms·
You're fabricating complications which don't make any technical sense as a justification to be angry about this basically harmless gesture. If you are that aver
by thecrash 5y ago
You're fabricating complications which don't make any technical sense as a justification to be angry about this basically harmless gesture. If you are that averse to the idea of being even remotely complicit in jamming the surveillance state, just don't use Signal.
- junon 5y agoFirstly, never has it been a requirement to "jam the surveillance state" to be a user of Signal. That's absolutely bananas. Did you read the text at the bottom of the post? They are randomly installing malware on users' devices to break or harm or otherwise self-destruct when Cellebrite machines read them. I'm not speaking for myself. I would opt in personally. I'm speaking for my mother who just wants a secure and reliable line of communication with her son without being pulled into some offensive scheme that could land HER in trouble or cause damages. If something is broken or destroyed without user knowledge or understanding or consent, you better believe Signal will see court cases.
- jamespo 5y agothere are plenty of other options than Signal, vote with your feet
- junon 5y agoName another privacy respecting application that can do calling and video between two phones with e2ee and is simple enough for a 65 year old non-tech-savvy woman to use. I'll switch her over immediately.
- quitethelogic 5y agoThe exploit targets Cellebrite, not Signal's own software. Cellebrite is running on the machine doing the extracting and not the device containing the original data. It's entirely possible that I'm wrong and this will cause your phone to explode, but if you don't trust the Signal developers enough to assume they won't intentionally explode your phone, you probably shouldn't be using their product.
- junon 5y agoI understand this. I'm saying my mother shouldn't be on the hook for her phone bricking a celebrity device used in good faith.