6 ms·

If privacy mattered that much to you, you wouldn't depend on Signal to encrypt your messages. You would encrypt them before handing them to Signal. So you shou

If privacy mattered that much to you, you wouldn't depend on Signal to encrypt your messages. You would encrypt them before handing them to Signal. So you should have an encrypted message that you hand to Signal. Signal encrypts it again and hands it to the bridge. Eventually, whether at the bridge or at the other end or wherever, something decrypts the Signal message. Then the person you are communicating with applies the final decryption outside of Signal, Matrix, or whatever. If this sounds terribly inconvenient to you, perhaps privacy is not as important as you claim. Security and convenience are almost always in conflict.

grassjumper 5y ago
This is like saying "If you don't sweep the bathroom for bugs/cams, you don't really care about privacy. Why do you bother closing the door"
idrios 5y ago
This is a very all or nothing mentality. It's also kind of like saying you should put locks on your locks. Signal's core reason for existing is that it puts a focus on privacy. They say this all over their homepage [0]. One of the founders of WhatsApp donated $50M to Signal [1] out of regret for how WhatsApp shifted away from privacy after being acquired by Facebook. The entire project is freely visible to anyone on github [2]. They've made it so even if you don't trust their servers, you can set up your own server and clone your own android/ios app, change some settings and have everything hosted yourself. There's no reason not to expect Signal to maintain the focus on privacy that they've put in thus far. [0] https://www.signal.org/ https://www.signal.org/ [1] https://www.wired.com/story/signal-foundation-whatsapp-brian-acton/ https://www.wired.com/story/signal-foundation-whatsapp-brian... [2] https://github.com/signalapp https://github.com/signalapp
- freeopinion 5y ago
  For most people, privacy is a nice-to-have thing. When it's just nice to have, Signal checks that box. If your life depended on it, you would be foolish to depend solely on Signal. How nice it is that encryption has emerged from the dark corners of life and death to become a fashion accessory. But for those that still exist in the world beyond fashion, your criticism seems naive.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  “Regret”. You don’t sell an app that barely makes money for $19B actually believing its most valuable asset won’t be used. Not like he isn’t currently keeping most of the billions he made from such “blood money” too.
broodbucket 5y ago
Your method delivers optimal conversation privacy by ensuring no-one would want to jump through the hoops to talk to you.
tao_oat 5y ago
If privacy is truly important to you, then you'll manually encrypt messages in your head using a one-time pad. Can't trust any program you didn't write yourself, including the compiler! /s > Security and convenience are almost always in conflict I think this is less true than people tend to think. See e.g. Signal/WhatApp rolling out relatively seamless E2EE to billions of people -- that was hard to imagine just a few decades ago!

grassjumper 5y ago

This is like saying "If you don't sweep the bathroom for bugs/cams, you don't really care about privacy. Why do you bother closing the door"

idrios 5y ago

This is a very all or nothing mentality. It's also kind of like saying you should put locks on your locks. Signal's core reason for existing is that it puts a focus on privacy. They say this all over their homepage [0]. One of the founders of WhatsApp donated $50M to Signal [1] out of regret for how WhatsApp shifted away from privacy after being acquired by Facebook. The entire project is freely visible to anyone on github [2]. They've made it so even if you don't trust their servers, you can set up your own server and clone your own android/ios app, change some settings and have everything hosted yourself. There's no reason not to expect Signal to maintain the focus on privacy that they've put in thus far. [0] https://www.signal.org/ https://www.signal.org/ [1] https://www.wired.com/story/signal-foundation-whatsapp-brian-acton/ https://www.wired.com/story/signal-foundation-whatsapp-brian... [2] https://github.com/signalapp https://github.com/signalapp

freeopinion 5y ago
For most people, privacy is a nice-to-have thing. When it's just nice to have, Signal checks that box. If your life depended on it, you would be foolish to depend solely on Signal. How nice it is that encryption has emerged from the dark corners of life and death to become a fashion accessory. But for those that still exist in the world beyond fashion, your criticism seems naive.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
skinnymuch 5y ago
“Regret”. You don’t sell an app that barely makes money for $19B actually believing its most valuable asset won’t be used. Not like he isn’t currently keeping most of the billions he made from such “blood money” too.

broodbucket 5y ago

Your method delivers optimal conversation privacy by ensuring no-one would want to jump through the hoops to talk to you.

tao_oat 5y ago

If privacy is truly important to you, then you'll manually encrypt messages in your head using a one-time pad. Can't trust any program you didn't write yourself, including the compiler! /s > Security and convenience are almost always in conflict I think this is less true than people tend to think. See e.g. Signal/WhatApp rolling out relatively seamless E2EE to billions of people -- that was hard to imagine just a few decades ago!