3 ms·

One of the driving forces of my full windows exodus was Recall. I knew they wouldn't seriously scrap the project. Glad to see measures are being taken to avoid

One of the driving forces of my full windows exodus was Recall. I knew they wouldn't seriously scrap the project. Glad to see measures are being taken to avoid the spies. Shame it comes to DRM though.

neilv 1y ago
Yours is the real solution. What Signal did is a temporary kludge around the underlying problems, which include that Microsoft is hostile towards customers and users whenever it thinks it can get away with it. Also, as you get into mechanisms like DRM, which treat the owner and user of the device as adversaries, you make it harder to detect when the device or something on it is misbehaving against the interests of the owner/user (such as for secret surveillance).
- mistrial9 1y ago
  > Microsoft is hostile towards customers and users MSFT is implementing hierarchical control and monitoring on their desktop computers. Executive branch, legal and finance are the drivers. Users are serfs.
- godelski 1y ago
  I mean what else can signal do? You can't win against whoever controls the OS or hardware. They have effective absolute power. They do have to treat the "owner" as an adversary because companies like Microsoft make claim that they are the owner, not the user.
  - bilbo0s 1y ago
    From a security perspective, you shouldn't be using anything you don't control from the bottom up. That includes Windows and Signal. Full stop. But in a pragmatic world, we can't have that level of security. You're reduced to deciding where you are willing to tolerate the security weaknesses. Obviously, no software or hardware will be 100% secure. But absent having an existential state level need to roll your own, you just have to pick from what's out there and accept that none of it is fully secure.
    - godelski 1y ago
      I mean I agree but this also is acting like there's no alternative. Apple exists. Hell, Linux exists and is easy these days (see main comment). It's just unclear to me if your comment is implying that we should just roll over. If so, I vehemently disagree. If not, I'm actually not sure what you're saying and sorry if I'm misunderstanding.
      - vel0city 1y ago
        > you shouldn't be using anything you don't control from the bottom up You absolutely do not control any Apple device from the bottom up. It is Apple software running on Apple hardware, tons of closed off secret stuff in there. And even then, you probably don't really control whatever Linux you installed from the bottom up. It's filled with code you didn't audit and validate, you're probably getting updates delivered on a regular basis by people you don't know, etc. And even then, where are you going to run that? On a modern x86 processor running all kinds of UEFI software and microcode with security coprocessors you can't directly interface in but can see all your memory and devices?
        godelski 1y ago
        So what's your point? I don't get what you're arguing other than giving up. I'm sorry, but if someone wants to take a shit on me I'm not just going to submit to that fate. I'll try to get out. I don't know about you, but I'd rather step in shit than have it forcefully poured down by throat. At least with Linux, I know there are other people checking. People with expertise I don't have. People not incentivized by their own employer. Certainly this creates higher levels of trust than the closed source setting. If it doesn't, then your argument applies to literally any subject. Medicine, food, whatever. Let's not act like this is a binary setting, it is a spectrum. There are situations that are better than others even if they aren't perfect.
        vel0city 1y ago
        My point is, practically speaking normal users have just as much "control" over their stuff whether it's running Linux or Mac or Windows in the end. It's pretty much impossible to truly control the whole stack from the bottom up, it's a pretty much impossible standard for normal people they created. > People not incentivized by their own employer. Tons of FOSS is written by people paid to write it a a part of their jobs. And I don't know why I'd trust a passion project of an amateur doing it for fun over a paid professional doing it. Maybe the guy doing it for free is better, maybe he isn't. Do you trust the guy giving medical advice over the internet on some random blog over the licensed paid specialist doctor you might otherwise see? Do you trust the pills made by a pharmaceutical company to actually be what it says on the box more than a guy handing out pills at a concert? After all that guy posting on the internet or handing out pills isn't being incentivized by their employer! And I wouldn't necessarily trust some random open source project over a similar closed source project if I'm not going to take the time to actually audit it myself. Just having the source code over there doesn't do anything for you if you don't read it. And besides, you're probably going to pull compiled binaries and aren't going to actually verify that build are you? And you're building it with what, a compiler you downloaded already compiled? You definitely validated that, right? You're right, it's a spectrum of choices one makes. But it's not like open source instantly makes something more trustworthy or more secure or something. You have the ability to do more to trust it, but it isn't inherently more trustworthy by just having the source available.
  - fsflover 1y ago
    > I mean what else can signal do? How about allowing us to run it on hardware that we can control: GNU/Linux desktop and phones, without requiring a connection from Android?
    - jalk 1y ago
      Whats wrong with https://signal.org/download/linux/ https://signal.org/download/linux/ ? edit: Oh you mean the registration that requires a phone
      - fsflover 1y ago
        AFAIK it's not just registration. The Android phone can control the Signal app, if I'm not mistaken. Also: Apple and Google confirm governments spy on users through push notifications (androidauthority.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38555810 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38555810
        godelski 1y ago
        > The Android phone can control the Signal app I'm not aware of this having been done, but it would be unsurprising. You can't win against the OS... If the OS (or hardware) is malicious, you're out of luck. Nothing you can do as a developer. The OS has complete control... If this is your major concern, I suggest moving to a deGoogle'd OS. There's still going to be concerns even after wiping Android because there's hardware, but certainly this places trust less in the hands of Google (but you're still going to need to trust the OS maker). Registration is fair. There's been a lot of pushback against this. Things look to be moving in a positive direction with usernames, but hasn't quite come to removing phone number requirement. I believe they are still using this to help reduce spam (much easier to spam if email or no outer registration. But I hope they resolve that).

neilv 1y ago

Yours is the real solution. What Signal did is a temporary kludge around the underlying problems, which include that Microsoft is hostile towards customers and users whenever it thinks it can get away with it. Also, as you get into mechanisms like DRM, which treat the owner and user of the device as adversaries, you make it harder to detect when the device or something on it is misbehaving against the interests of the owner/user (such as for secret surveillance).

mistrial9 1y ago
> Microsoft is hostile towards customers and users MSFT is implementing hierarchical control and monitoring on their desktop computers. Executive branch, legal and finance are the drivers. Users are serfs.
godelski 1y ago
I mean what else can signal do? You can't win against whoever controls the OS or hardware. They have effective absolute power. They do have to treat the "owner" as an adversary because companies like Microsoft make claim that they are the owner, not the user.
- bilbo0s 1y ago
  From a security perspective, you shouldn't be using anything you don't control from the bottom up. That includes Windows and Signal. Full stop. But in a pragmatic world, we can't have that level of security. You're reduced to deciding where you are willing to tolerate the security weaknesses. Obviously, no software or hardware will be 100% secure. But absent having an existential state level need to roll your own, you just have to pick from what's out there and accept that none of it is fully secure.
  - godelski 1y ago
    I mean I agree but this also is acting like there's no alternative. Apple exists. Hell, Linux exists and is easy these days (see main comment). It's just unclear to me if your comment is implying that we should just roll over. If so, I vehemently disagree. If not, I'm actually not sure what you're saying and sorry if I'm misunderstanding.
    - vel0city 1y ago
      > you shouldn't be using anything you don't control from the bottom up You absolutely do not control any Apple device from the bottom up. It is Apple software running on Apple hardware, tons of closed off secret stuff in there. And even then, you probably don't really control whatever Linux you installed from the bottom up. It's filled with code you didn't audit and validate, you're probably getting updates delivered on a regular basis by people you don't know, etc. And even then, where are you going to run that? On a modern x86 processor running all kinds of UEFI software and microcode with security coprocessors you can't directly interface in but can see all your memory and devices?
      - godelski 1y ago
        So what's your point? I don't get what you're arguing other than giving up. I'm sorry, but if someone wants to take a shit on me I'm not just going to submit to that fate. I'll try to get out. I don't know about you, but I'd rather step in shit than have it forcefully poured down by throat. At least with Linux, I know there are other people checking. People with expertise I don't have. People not incentivized by their own employer. Certainly this creates higher levels of trust than the closed source setting. If it doesn't, then your argument applies to literally any subject. Medicine, food, whatever. Let's not act like this is a binary setting, it is a spectrum. There are situations that are better than others even if they aren't perfect.
        vel0city 1y ago
        My point is, practically speaking normal users have just as much "control" over their stuff whether it's running Linux or Mac or Windows in the end. It's pretty much impossible to truly control the whole stack from the bottom up, it's a pretty much impossible standard for normal people they created. > People not incentivized by their own employer. Tons of FOSS is written by people paid to write it a a part of their jobs. And I don't know why I'd trust a passion project of an amateur doing it for fun over a paid professional doing it. Maybe the guy doing it for free is better, maybe he isn't. Do you trust the guy giving medical advice over the internet on some random blog over the licensed paid specialist doctor you might otherwise see? Do you trust the pills made by a pharmaceutical company to actually be what it says on the box more than a guy handing out pills at a concert? After all that guy posting on the internet or handing out pills isn't being incentivized by their employer! And I wouldn't necessarily trust some random open source project over a similar closed source project if I'm not going to take the time to actually audit it myself. Just having the source code over there doesn't do anything for you if you don't read it. And besides, you're probably going to pull compiled binaries and aren't going to actually verify that build are you? And you're building it with what, a compiler you downloaded already compiled? You definitely validated that, right? You're right, it's a spectrum of choices one makes. But it's not like open source instantly makes something more trustworthy or more secure or something. You have the ability to do more to trust it, but it isn't inherently more trustworthy by just having the source available.
- fsflover 1y ago
  > I mean what else can signal do? How about allowing us to run it on hardware that we can control: GNU/Linux desktop and phones, without requiring a connection from Android?
  - jalk 1y ago
    Whats wrong with https://signal.org/download/linux/ https://signal.org/download/linux/ ? edit: Oh you mean the registration that requires a phone
    - fsflover 1y ago
      AFAIK it's not just registration. The Android phone can control the Signal app, if I'm not mistaken. Also: Apple and Google confirm governments spy on users through push notifications (androidauthority.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38555810 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38555810
      - godelski 1y ago
        > The Android phone can control the Signal app I'm not aware of this having been done, but it would be unsurprising. You can't win against the OS... If the OS (or hardware) is malicious, you're out of luck. Nothing you can do as a developer. The OS has complete control... If this is your major concern, I suggest moving to a deGoogle'd OS. There's still going to be concerns even after wiping Android because there's hardware, but certainly this places trust less in the hands of Google (but you're still going to need to trust the OS maker). Registration is fair. There's been a lot of pushback against this. Things look to be moving in a positive direction with usernames, but hasn't quite come to removing phone number requirement. I believe they are still using this to help reduce spam (much easier to spam if email or no outer registration. But I hope they resolve that).