4 ms·
Unsecure in terms of being vulnerable to state spying on cell phones. Not of network interception, but rather compromised phones where a foreign adversary can r
by crazygringo 2y ago
Unsecure in terms of being vulnerable to state spying on cell phones. Not of network interception, but rather compromised phones where a foreign adversary can read all your phone's data.
From this perspective, all phones are insecure. Classified government stuff isn't ever supposed to be on commercial smartphones in the first place.
The kind of security Signal provides is sufficient for people who aren't active targets of foreign states.
- organsnyder 2y agoI remember how big of a deal it was when Obama wanted to keep his Blackberry. I have a colleague that used to work for RIM, and he's alluded to work he did for that effort that he's still unable to discuss.
- addandsubtract 2y agoRemember when Hillary used a private email server? Trump and MAGA were chanting to "Lock her up!"
- revnode 2y agoRemember how she wasn't locked up? That set the precedent.
- JadeNB 2y ago> Remember how she wasn't locked up? That set the precedent. Locking her up would have set a far worse precedent, and I think that the other norm-breaking behavior of the current administration does not support the idea that prior punishment of past administration members for insecure data management would have led this administration to more secure data practices.
- rco8786 2y agoNo better time than the present to establish a better precedent. Though more realistically, nobody needs to be going to jail in either case - but if there are zero consequences for anyone involved well, that's telling for a leader who frequently criticizes his opponents for not firing people when they do poorly.
- eastbound 2y agoA non-encrypted email server under a desk with a rogue email address where foreign officials have written that is not a .gov domain, not monitored, not seizable, is like deleting evidence. It’s possibly accessory to treason when you are Minister of State. Using Signal is still against all rules, but at least it’s not unencrypted. It proves that all governments bypass monitoring of their communications, even Google’s CEO when they discussed by auto-deleted chats.
- drivingmenuts 2y agoI realize that government is terrified of the Captains of Industry, but it really should have cracked down on that hard and made it clear that if it happened again, the next crackdown would guarantee there wouldn't be a third repeat.
- ethbr1 2y ago> not monitored, not seizable, is like deleting evidence Like Signal? >> Mike Waltz set disappearing message time to 4 weeks [0] [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/signal-group-chat-attack-plans-hegseth-goldberg/682176/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/signal-...
- Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 2y agoHmm. Well the issue is that he's using Signal, and that it's on a consumer grade phone, that is akin to deleting evidence. But at this point disappearing message is more like limiting how bad this behavior is rather than aggravating circumstances. I mean he's wrong to be using that setup but if using it I much prefer those illegal messages not be present anymore when he loses his phone or something.
- ethbr1 2y agoIt is illegal to destroy records of US government communications, especially at a high level, without first receiving approval from the National Archives.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- charcircuit 2y agoDesktop operating systems are less secure than phone ones so any desktop messenger is more insecure.
- ahartmetz 2y agoQubesOS, Genode, QNX if you manage to run a desktop...
- fsflover 2y agoRelated discussion: https://forum.qubes-os.org/t/security-of-qubes-os-vs-grapheneos/21372 https://forum.qubes-os.org/t/security-of-qubes-os-vs-graphen...
- crazygringo 2y agoWell, top secret information isn't permitted on internet-connected desktop computers either. But the thing about desktop computers is that they're not connecting to cell towers all the time. So if WiFi is disabled too as a precaution, and they're only connected to private secure networks via Ethernet and not the internet, you can consider them secure in terms of protecting classified secrets.
- instagib 2y agoI don’t think many people understand how the TS or Secret networks of military bases are connected. It wasn’t long ago that we were subject to stringent military standards for hosting these networks on site but once they came through, there was never any re-certification.
- raxxorraxor 2y agoThat is inherently very untrue. Mobile phones are targeted differently than desktop PCs, but this general statement is wrong as it is.
- rrauenza 2y agoIt also doesn't adhere to gov't record keeping policies / laws.
- fsflover 2y ago> Unsecure in terms of being vulnerable to state spying on cell phones Signal forces us to use Android or iOS. Doesn't it look suspicious? I would happily use it on my desktop with Qubes OS, but I can't do it without a much less secure smartphone.
- justaj 2y agoIf QubesOS supports Flatpaks sufficiently, then it might run the Signal Desktop app (though if you want to register a new account, you do have to have a phone number, which is also possible virtually these days anyway)
- fsflover 2y agoYes, Flatpaks are supported. However the untrusted, vulnerable phone will have a full access, won't it?
- fc417fc802 2y agoOnly if you use a phone with it. Does the official server actively filter numbers from VoIP providers? As much as I want to say "screw the developer's nonsense, just compile it yourself and do as you please" honestly why bend over backwards to use such a platform when solutions such as Matrix are available?
- fsflover 2y agoI agree and use Matrix myself. I just don't understand the Signal hype on HN.
- raxxorraxor 2y agoIt all depends on your security requirements. For me it is insecure compared to almost any anonymous internet chat since it requires your mobile number, a serious and unnecessary security risk. Burner phones are illegal in the EU, it isn't the privacy paradise its marketing sometimes tries to project.