3 ms·

What I mean is that Signal as a messaging service depends completely on Signal as an organisation and on the few individuals running that organisation. Everythi

What I mean is that Signal as a messaging service depends completely on Signal as an organisation and on the few individuals running that organisation. Everything hinges on them. It's pretty clear that governments around the world (including many western countries) have decided that online services must take full responsibility for everything their users say and do on the platform. Regulation is coming hard and fast. It's not subtle and some of it will inevitably be inconsistent with E2EE. Anyone running a popular service of this sort is going to be under huge pressure - political pressure, expensive legal pressure and presumably the sort of pressure exerted by police and intelligence services that the rest of us are fortunate not to know very much about. Signal's structure, the tight link between the org, the people and the centralised operations focuses all the pressure on this small group of people. They are going to be an absolute lightning rod as soon as WhatsApp has given up. I don't want to be in their shoes. I fear they will have to make very difficult decisions pretty soon. I find it puzzling that they're making themselves the target of further powerful opponents by adding cryptocurrencies to the mix. I think Matrix has the better structure for what's coming. It distributes the pressure. It's not either on or off. It's not just some specific app that can be banned.

tialaramex 5y ago
Politicians are under pressure to "do something" about services like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, Youtube, Reddit ... services which publish what some of their users do and say, and enjoy broad immunity from lawsuits despite choosing what is communicated and by who. None of which applies to Signal. Your theory is that, seeing this, US politicians will decide priority #1 is to re-write the US constitution in order to go after a completely different service? Sure, they can't find a bare majority of votes for cheap, easy fixes that are broadly popular, but repeatedly getting super-majorities for the lengthy and expensive process of tearing down the fundamental principles of the country to go after an outfit few voters have even heard of it will be easy? I don't buy it. One of the most awful things about the "better structure" of Matrix is that if you make any use of this "better structure" you eliminate Don't Stand Out which is an essential characteristic of Signal. Yet, to enable that "better structure" to even exist Matrix already makes you give up some of the privacy you have on Signal anyway. So you're losing some privacy to have the option of giving up even more privacy. Several of the sub-threads in this discussion mention metadata. Don't Stand Out is crucial because of metadata. The Secret Police can raid all sixteen users of "Jim's Black Pill Matrix Server" and if two of them are innocent bystanders too bad, all fourteen members of the Conspiracy To Do A Naughty Thing are known to use Jim's server, and so they Stand Out and were caught. In contrast, using Signal the Conspiracy To Do A Naughty Thing are disguised by the presence of Sarah's Hen Night Planning DO NOT TELL SARAH, Smith Family Group, and LOL Funny Cats!!!! among many more. Signal doesn't know, or care about any of these groups.
- fauigerzigerk 5y ago
  I don't think it's realistic to assume that there will be a very large number of tiny Matrix servers that stand out. It's far more likely that there will be a couple of big ones and some midsize ones that most people use. Each of them can obviously become a target, but they will be in various different jurisdictions and it's easy to create new ones linked to all the rest of them. If you think that E2EE is not under heavy political fire then please read what our governments are demanding from tech companies. This is not limited to companies that are "choosing what is communicated and by who". On the contrary, governments are demanding that companies monitor what is communicated and by who: International statement: End-to-end encryption and public safety https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/international-statement-end-to-end-encryption-and-public-safety/international-statement-end-to-end-encryption-and-public-safety-accessible-version https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/international-sta...
  - tialaramex 5y ago
    That "International Statement" basically says "We wish facts weren't true". But, like, too bad they are. Notice that it doesn't say they acknowledge the reality and so, fuck it, they'll just violate Human Rights and "materially weaken or limit security systems", instead they say well, surely we can avoid that and yet still get the same outcome. Nope. That's not how facts work. Writing long letters deploring the rules might work if you're up against the resident's association, local town council, or even a court of law, but Mother Nature couldn't give a shit what you think about her rules.

tialaramex 5y ago

Politicians are under pressure to "do something" about services like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, Youtube, Reddit ... services which publish what some of their users do and say, and enjoy broad immunity from lawsuits despite choosing what is communicated and by who. None of which applies to Signal. Your theory is that, seeing this, US politicians will decide priority #1 is to re-write the US constitution in order to go after a completely different service? Sure, they can't find a bare majority of votes for cheap, easy fixes that are broadly popular, but repeatedly getting super-majorities for the lengthy and expensive process of tearing down the fundamental principles of the country to go after an outfit few voters have even heard of it will be easy? I don't buy it. One of the most awful things about the "better structure" of Matrix is that if you make any use of this "better structure" you eliminate Don't Stand Out which is an essential characteristic of Signal. Yet, to enable that "better structure" to even exist Matrix already makes you give up some of the privacy you have on Signal anyway. So you're losing some privacy to have the option of giving up even more privacy. Several of the sub-threads in this discussion mention metadata. Don't Stand Out is crucial because of metadata. The Secret Police can raid all sixteen users of "Jim's Black Pill Matrix Server" and if two of them are innocent bystanders too bad, all fourteen members of the Conspiracy To Do A Naughty Thing are known to use Jim's server, and so they Stand Out and were caught. In contrast, using Signal the Conspiracy To Do A Naughty Thing are disguised by the presence of Sarah's Hen Night Planning DO NOT TELL SARAH, Smith Family Group, and LOL Funny Cats!!!! among many more. Signal doesn't know, or care about any of these groups.

fauigerzigerk 5y ago
I don't think it's realistic to assume that there will be a very large number of tiny Matrix servers that stand out. It's far more likely that there will be a couple of big ones and some midsize ones that most people use. Each of them can obviously become a target, but they will be in various different jurisdictions and it's easy to create new ones linked to all the rest of them. If you think that E2EE is not under heavy political fire then please read what our governments are demanding from tech companies. This is not limited to companies that are "choosing what is communicated and by who". On the contrary, governments are demanding that companies monitor what is communicated and by who: International statement: End-to-end encryption and public safety https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/international-statement-end-to-end-encryption-and-public-safety/international-statement-end-to-end-encryption-and-public-safety-accessible-version https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/international-sta...
- tialaramex 5y ago
  That "International Statement" basically says "We wish facts weren't true". But, like, too bad they are. Notice that it doesn't say they acknowledge the reality and so, fuck it, they'll just violate Human Rights and "materially weaken or limit security systems", instead they say well, surely we can avoid that and yet still get the same outcome. Nope. That's not how facts work. Writing long letters deploring the rules might work if you're up against the resident's association, local town council, or even a court of law, but Mother Nature couldn't give a shit what you think about her rules.