4 ms·

That's why it's important to use apps like Signal where you can set the retention of your messages. I've got everybody I know using it now!

madeofpalk 2y ago
Given historical backups are the norm here, retention only does so much. Really, apps should encrypt their own storage with keys that aren't stored in the backups. That's how you get security/privacy back.
- cma 2y ago
  Many people want control over whether they back up conversations with others, and think it would be crazy for sender to control the retention policy instead of receiver. I think sender should just be able to send a recommended preference hint on retention and you could have an option to respect it or not.
- buran77 2y ago
  > That's how you get security/privacy back. Nothing an app does on a device guarantees you security or privacy if you don't trust or fully control the device.
  - Aachen 2y ago
    Yes, but they'd have to issue another one of these snooping demands to either the app's developer (there's loads of developers so this would get out of hand quickly) or to Apple to patch the build or read the memory or something to get the unencrypted data This current demand isn't blanket access to your device, it's access to things uploaded to Apple's online storage service. Having to get a backdoor that works with every app's encryption takes a lot more work while running the data through an authenticated encryption algorithm is relatively trivial for a developer
hugh-avherald 2y ago
Setting a retention time out is playing with fire. If the police get ahold of the other party's device, and present an exhibit which they say contains the true conversation, you could be worse off than if you retained the conversation. The fact that you have since deleted it could be incriminating. In some jurisdiction, yes, legally, such evidence might not be probative, but you might still convicted because of it.
- fdb345 2y ago
  message retention has literally NEVER been used as incrimination in a court of law. So you are wrong.
  - sangeeth96 2y ago
    Umm, isn’t this related? https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/26/24141801/ftc-amazon-antitrust-signal-ephemeral-messaging-evidence https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/26/24141801/ftc-amazon-antit...
    - nickburns 2y ago
      No. That's a civil discovery matter.
      - fdb345 2y ago
        Its also a private business directive not a law
    - dvtkrlbs 2y ago
      I don't think so. Corporate communication is bound by different laws and you have way higher burden of evidence in case of legal requests. I don't think this creates a precedent for personal communications.
    - bunderbunder 2y ago
      This isn't Amazon getting in trouble for implementation of a routine records retention policy. It's Amazon getting in trouble for violating a document retention mandate related to an ongoing lawsuit.
fdb345 2y ago
In a world where they cancel encryption they can't access... doesn't Signal and its CIA funded origins concern you?
- HumblyTossed 2y ago
  Nope. I actually think that would bring more scrutiny and so I feel safer knowing it's not be cracked.
  - fdb345 2y ago
    interesting and illogical reply
    - HumblyTossed 2y ago
      No more illogical than trusting Apple's security because it is ... Apple.
      - fdb345 2y ago
        Well, here you are discussing why UK law needed a pass because they are literally blocked by Apples security. Talk about Low IQ
        HumblyTossed 2y ago
        Thanks for the attack on my IQ. I see I have nothing to worry about.
sneak 2y ago
I use a patched Signal client that disables retention deletion and remote delete messages.
- ruined 2y ago
  and that's awfully rude of you, but if you were concerned about message retention you wouldn't do that. so what's your point?
  - spopejoy 2y ago
    Nothing rude about it -- if the protocol depends on client-side s/w to pinky-swear it respects message retention, then it's an insecure protocol. I like signal and use it, but I already thought message retention was pointless. It seems at best a trusted informal protocol you can use with known parties but not something you can really rely on.

madeofpalk 2y ago

Given historical backups are the norm here, retention only does so much. Really, apps should encrypt their own storage with keys that aren't stored in the backups. That's how you get security/privacy back.

cma 2y ago
Many people want control over whether they back up conversations with others, and think it would be crazy for sender to control the retention policy instead of receiver. I think sender should just be able to send a recommended preference hint on retention and you could have an option to respect it or not.
buran77 2y ago
> That's how you get security/privacy back. Nothing an app does on a device guarantees you security or privacy if you don't trust or fully control the device.
- Aachen 2y ago
  Yes, but they'd have to issue another one of these snooping demands to either the app's developer (there's loads of developers so this would get out of hand quickly) or to Apple to patch the build or read the memory or something to get the unencrypted data This current demand isn't blanket access to your device, it's access to things uploaded to Apple's online storage service. Having to get a backdoor that works with every app's encryption takes a lot more work while running the data through an authenticated encryption algorithm is relatively trivial for a developer

hugh-avherald 2y ago

Setting a retention time out is playing with fire. If the police get ahold of the other party's device, and present an exhibit which they say contains the true conversation, you could be worse off than if you retained the conversation. The fact that you have since deleted it could be incriminating. In some jurisdiction, yes, legally, such evidence might not be probative, but you might still convicted because of it.

fdb345 2y ago
message retention has literally NEVER been used as incrimination in a court of law. So you are wrong.
- sangeeth96 2y ago
  Umm, isn’t this related? https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/26/24141801/ftc-amazon-antitrust-signal-ephemeral-messaging-evidence https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/26/24141801/ftc-amazon-antit...
  - nickburns 2y ago
    No. That's a civil discovery matter.
    - fdb345 2y ago
      Its also a private business directive not a law
  - dvtkrlbs 2y ago
    I don't think so. Corporate communication is bound by different laws and you have way higher burden of evidence in case of legal requests. I don't think this creates a precedent for personal communications.
  - bunderbunder 2y ago
    This isn't Amazon getting in trouble for implementation of a routine records retention policy. It's Amazon getting in trouble for violating a document retention mandate related to an ongoing lawsuit.

fdb345 2y ago

In a world where they cancel encryption they can't access... doesn't Signal and its CIA funded origins concern you?

HumblyTossed 2y ago
Nope. I actually think that would bring more scrutiny and so I feel safer knowing it's not be cracked.
- fdb345 2y ago
  interesting and illogical reply
  - HumblyTossed 2y ago
    No more illogical than trusting Apple's security because it is ... Apple.
    - fdb345 2y ago
      Well, here you are discussing why UK law needed a pass because they are literally blocked by Apples security. Talk about Low IQ
      - HumblyTossed 2y ago
        Thanks for the attack on my IQ. I see I have nothing to worry about.

sneak 2y ago

I use a patched Signal client that disables retention deletion and remote delete messages.

ruined 2y ago
and that's awfully rude of you, but if you were concerned about message retention you wouldn't do that. so what's your point?
- spopejoy 2y ago
  Nothing rude about it -- if the protocol depends on client-side s/w to pinky-swear it respects message retention, then it's an insecure protocol. I like signal and use it, but I already thought message retention was pointless. It seems at best a trusted informal protocol you can use with known parties but not something you can really rely on.