3 ms·
Because your account is currently your phone number, so if they want to open the service to a limited number of power users, it makes sense to restrict it to fo
by btreecat 3y ago
Because your account is currently your phone number, so if they want to open the service to a limited number of power users, it makes sense to restrict it to folks who already are signal users, IMO.
- thaumasiotes 3y agoYou don't see any conflict between that and the claim "The only thing Signal knows about a user is when they registered and their last login time"?
- Nekit1234007 3y agos/user/phone number/
- btreecat 3y agoNot at all, a user is a phone number. Do you have a recommendation on how they would prevent fraud and abuse w/o using a phone number while also maintaining the same level of low friction?
- thaumasiotes 3y agoWhat fraud and abuse? They can prevent fraud and abuse by doing anything, including by doing nothing, because those aren't concepts that apply to their product.
- Arnt 3y agoSpam is one kind of abuse.
- thaumasiotes 3y agoSo? What's the threat model? How does having phone numbers help?
- Arnt 3y agoYou're making assertions about what Signal needs, and you're doing it without knowing their threat model.
- Vinnl 3y agoAs I understand it, the phone number requirement won't be going away - it's just the requirement to share it with your contacts that they're abolishing.
- btreecat 3y agoSeems like the right level of tradeoff to prevent abuse and enabling privacy, did you have a different expectation in terms of balance?
- Vinnl 3y agoNo, that's perfectly fine for me too, just wanted to be accurate and manage expectations :) (In fact, I do still expect public phone numbers to be the "default", i.e. encouraged, experience, because of its viral properties. This is also fine by me, as I want Signal to be used by as many people as possible.)