6 ms·

These issues I'd consider pretty crucial to approaching Signal-like privacy and there's not been much progress on them unfortunately: https://github.com/matrix-

• fsflover 5y ago
  Unfortunately Signal is a walled garden actively fighting against alternative clients and servers. This is enough for me to avoid it and recommend Matrix. If you feel that those issues are critical, please donate your money or time to solve them.
  • m-p-3 5y ago
    And Signal forces you to use your phone number as your identifier, which can be traced relatively easily to a person or at least a geographical position by the authorities. The content of the message might be encrypted, but metadata can provide valuable intelligence insights. At least Matrix can be used mostly anonymously through a user-generated identifier, without an email address or phone number, and can be used through Tor.
    • BeatLeJuce 5y ago
      I recently changed my mind on this: being able to use phone numbers as identifiers also has some benefits: Last time I was on vacation, it was easy to get in touch with service providers (e.g. surf school, massage place) via WhatsApp, simply because I had their number, and everyone used WhatsApp anyways. If Signal would be more popular, I could instead contact them directly via Signal, since I only need their phone number. It allows for a more seamless transition. Matrix OTOH would have a harder time getting adopted: businesses would need to update their websites, facebook pages and flyers to add the matrix contact info. Which they wouldn't do until Matrix is more popular. Which is a chicken and egg problem.
      • bilkow 5y ago
        Although optional, matrix actually has identity servers, which allow people to find you via phone number / email.
      • 3np 5y ago
        Matrix still has 3pids, including phone number and email. The most common client, Element, will by default ask you for your phone number when registering with the default matrix.org homeserver and the default vector.im identity server will associate your phone number with your matrix user. So by default (changing servers and/or opting out is easy and encouraged BTW), Matrix already works like you would prefer. This is BTW a main critique in the OP since it makes vector.im a PII and metadata aggregator.
      • hansel_der 5y ago
        > being able to use phone numbers as identifiers also has some benefits of course it has, but so has the ability to NOT use a phone number. different use cases
    • spurgu 5y ago
      > The content of the message might be encrypted, but metadata can provide valuable intelligence insights. What metadata? Signal doesn't store anything about you aside the date you joined and the time of your last ping.
      • bigyellow 5y ago
        > Signal doesn't store anything about you aside the date you joined and the time of your last ping. Last I checked, Signal uses AWS, Azure and GCP. All of those services are completely logged and although "Signal" may not be storing metadata, intelligence services on those networks definitely are.
      • uoaei 5y ago
        Data is sent over a network, and has an origin and destination. Of course Signal wouldn't store things like that, but the network administrator wouldn't have much trouble collecting extra metadata such as that on top of what is stored.
    • shapefrog 5y ago
      > And Signal forces you to use your phone number as your identifier Signal forces you to use "a" phone number as your identifier. It does not have to be your primary phone number, or home phone number or office phone number. Just a phone number that you have control of.
      • fsflover 5y ago
        > Just a phone number that you have control of. In most parts of the world, you cannot get "just" a phone number not tied to your real identity.
        • snark42 5y ago
          Prepaid cellular phones and Google Voice aren't available in most parts of the world with a little effort?
          • fsflover 5y ago
            I was speaking about the prepaid cellular phones. Again, in most parts of the world, you cannot get an anonymous sim-card. AFAIK you also cannot create a Google account without a phone number.
            • shapefrog 5y ago
              Everyone loves to say depends on your threat model so lets define "tied to your real identity". 1. the number everyone you have met since you were 12 has in their contacts. 2. the number a few people have but you also use for you facebook account. 3. the number nobody / no tech has but you have provided your legal id to the network provider. 4. the number nobody / no tech has and you gave the network provider a burner email for. 5. the number nobody / no tech has that you paid for in cash while wearing a wig and glasses half way across town. You put into a new, paid for in cash phone, activated and used briefly while carrying no other electronic devices while disguised and avoiding cctv. 6. the inbound phone number in the lobby of the ritz carlton. Some of those are better than using 'firstname.lastname' as you identifier. 1&2 are definately public numbers 4&5&6 are not. #3 in the real world is semi-anonymous - for those with real privacy needs, they should be taking many other precautions and shouldnt be carrying a tracking device or using a single phone number or service irrespective of it being in their name or someone elses or nobody at all. For privacy LARPERS of course it is not at all anonymous.
  • EGreg 5y ago
    In terms of closed centralized services, I’d say Telegram is my top pick, followed by Signal. But I would take open source decentralized networks over them anyday, and my favorite is Freenet, or the much newer network, MaidSAFE because it is the most secure thing I have ever seen (but that’s not mainstream yet).
    • fsflover 5y ago
      How about Ricochet instant messenger or I2P?
      • Snitch-Thursday 5y ago
        Think Ricochet got replaced by cwtch.im correct? At least the binaries I can find of Ricochet are super stale.
        • fsflover 5y ago
          https://www.ricochetrefresh.net/ https://www.ricochetrefresh.net/
    • kown7 5y ago
      I don't see the allure of Telegram over anything; can you elaborate?
      • hansel_der 5y ago
        it works very well on every device/os and can easily be extended
      • EGreg 5y ago
        More user friendly Crypto that I trust more than Signal Far more documented and open (even though backend is not) Supports many clients
    • XorNot 5y ago
      Telegram is not encrypted E2E by default at all.
  • tptacek 5y ago
    This isn't responsive to the previous comment. Either the messenger meets or exceeds the privacy and security of Signal or it doesn't. If it doesn't, that's material regardless of what you believe about the aesthetics of Signal or their communitarian spirit. Most people who use secure messengers are LARPing (often in a good-willed performative way, as a way of supporting the privacy of others who truly need it). But some people aren't LARPing, truly need privacy, and compromising their safety to make a point about federation is immoral.
    • fsflover 5y ago
      Security is not everything there is to want from a messenger. Due to its centralized approach, Signal is having a problem with financing and I doubt it can be easily solved. It had a large downtime recently. Also, it becomes an easy target for all kinds of bad actors, since it's the single server. I trust it less for those reasons, even if it's "secure" by your standards. I just don't see it being secure long-term, not enough to suggest it to my friends or use myself. People who truly need privacy in the short term, should consult a professional and not trust random comments from strangers.
      • tptacek 5y ago
        I agree that security isn't everything there is to want from a messenger. But when the question being asked is "which messengers are secure", it is the only question that matters.
        • fsflover 5y ago
          No, there is also a question "how long can this messenger stay secure?" In case of Signal, IMHO, the answer is "not very long".
          • tptacek 5y ago
            None of what you've said to support that argument sounded persuasive to me. I think it's a pretty transparent rhetorical sleight of hand to say "the only way things can actually be secure in the long run is for them to be federated the way I want them to be". I get it, you want to run federated systems that you can build your own clients for. The evidence for those kinds of systems being the most private runs strongly in the opposite direction. Would you like an example that's especially relevant to this thread? Because I can provide you with one.
• foxfluff 5y ago
  I think this one is also pretty bad. And years later still not fixed. https://github.com/vector-im/element-web/issues/2527 https://github.com/vector-im/element-web/issues/2527 In short? When you look at a room, your client sends a (public) read receipt. So stalkers get near-realtime data on your activity and the simple act of viewing different rooms (and maybe even just focusing the window) to see what's up causes data to be sent to the server. Ugh.