nadmone

3 ms·

1.
by nadmone 4y ago
Most of those people aren't using Signal but the Signal Protocol. When people say they want different identities, infrastructure or clients what they are essentially saying is they want to use the Signal Protocol but they aren't F
2.
by nadmone 4y ago
No, the phone numbers are in the second sentence of my first comment. The exploits are in the sentence after as an explanation to why it was bad to use phone numbers. And that is only one example to make it a reasoned argument. Other such p
3.
by nadmone 4y ago
I didn't say it did. The post I replied to, which wasn't you, is arguing that Signal is successful. Therefor it is highly relevant whether it actually is. I don't know which goalpost you are talking about.
4.
by nadmone 4y ago
> Signal is a stunning success. That is what those criticizing it disagrees with, at least in that area. It is not a stunning success at letting you communicate with someone without disclosing a phone number. > If you or anyone does b
5.
by nadmone 4y ago
It is pretty easy to say it is good if you dismiss anyone saying it isn't as bitching. Signal was insisting everyone using a phone number as identifier. We now know there were zero-click iMessage exploits being used by oppressive gover
6.
by nadmone 4y ago
It was always required but not illegal. Which made it impractical but still an option not to do so. It wasn't uncommon for people living with their friend, partner or in a bad neighborhood to remain registered somewhere else. Now it is
7.
by nadmone 4y ago
I think it is increasingly likely they will have to shut down (or at least move) the company to remain principled. Just in recent years Sweden haphazardly requested to joined NATO (and is kowtowing to Turkey), sim cards started requiring re