4 ms·

You think an E2E encryption messenger is best served by a proprietary, single vendor implementation, with the added bonus of being able to subvert the client at

You think an E2E encryption messenger is best served by a proprietary, single vendor implementation, with the added bonus of being able to subvert the client at any moment for individual devices? There are some very weird takes around security on this to somehow twist it into an "Apple good" scenario. No, like literally every other time in history, closed & controlled does not make it more secure.

martinky24 3y ago
Isn't Whatsapp a proprietary, single vendor implementation? Isn't Signal a single vendor implementation? I'm confused on your point.
theshrike79 3y ago
Like Signal? To my knowledge, you can't make a 3rd party Signal client and connect it to the official Signal instances.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  > you can't make a 3rd party Signal client and connect it to the official Signal instances. The Signal guy doesn't want you to do that (just like Apple), but it's absolutely possible. It's in fact much easier than in the iMessage scenario since all the client sources are available.
KerrAvon 3y ago
Giving your Apple ID to a third party is an incredibly bad idea for your security, full stop. Do not ever do this. Any argument that this helps user security because your messages are now E2E is completely undermined by the risk to your identity for literally all of Apple's other services, and that someone could now impersonate you in Messages. But it'd be encrypted!
- wvenable 3y ago
  Of course, if you're on Android -- which you would be to use this service -- then maybe you don't even have any other Apple services (I don't). So this is not a problem. In fact, can't I not just create an new Apple ID specifically for this?
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    And if you're using this in place of SMS, having a single bad guy be able to read your messages is still better than having all the bad guys be able to read them.

4 ms·

You think an E2E encryption messenger is best served by a proprietary, single vendor implementation, with the added bonus of being able to subvert the client at

by stefan_ 3y ago

martinky24 3y ago
Isn't Whatsapp a proprietary, single vendor implementation? Isn't Signal a single vendor implementation? I'm confused on your point.
theshrike79 3y ago
Like Signal? To my knowledge, you can't make a 3rd party Signal client and connect it to the official Signal instances.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  > you can't make a 3rd party Signal client and connect it to the official Signal instances. The Signal guy doesn't want you to do that (just like Apple), but it's absolutely possible. It's in fact much easier than in the iMessage scenario since all the client sources are available.
KerrAvon 3y ago
Giving your Apple ID to a third party is an incredibly bad idea for your security, full stop. Do not ever do this. Any argument that this helps user security because your messages are now E2E is completely undermined by the risk to your identity for literally all of Apple's other services, and that someone could now impersonate you in Messages. But it'd be encrypted!
- wvenable 3y ago
  Of course, if you're on Android -- which you would be to use this service -- then maybe you don't even have any other Apple services (I don't). So this is not a problem. In fact, can't I not just create an new Apple ID specifically for this?
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    And if you're using this in place of SMS, having a single bad guy be able to read your messages is still better than having all the bad guys be able to read them.