• The Hobbyist@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 days ago

    This message is definitely giving all the vibes of a disinformation/misinformation attempt. There is no metadata to harvest from signal.

    Here is an example of all the extent of data that signal has on any given user: https://signal.org/bigbrother/cd-california-grand-jury/

    It involves phone number, account creation time and last connected time. That’s it. Nothing more.

    The cross referencing of data is just nonsense. Google and meta already have your phone number. Adding signal info to it adds absolutely zero information to them. They have it all already. They know nothing of who you talk with, which groups you are part of.

    The funding of Signal did involve public grants but that’s not anything bad. Many projects and nonprofits receive public money. It does not imply that there are backdoors or anything like that. And signal was purposefully designed so that no matter who owns and operates it, the messages stay hidden independently on the server infrastructure. They did the best possible to remove themselves from the chain of trust. Expert cryptographers and auditors trust signal. Don’t listen to this random ramble of an online stranger whose intentions are just to confuse you and make you doubt.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      It’s fascinating that these kinds of trolls come out of the woodwork any time obvious problems with Signal are brought up.

      Phone numbers very obvious are metadata. If you think that cross referencing data is nonsense then you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about. It’s not about Google or Meta having your phone number, it’s about having a graph of people doing encrypted communication with each other over Signal. The graph of contacts is what’s valuable.

      Don’t listen to this random ramble of an online stranger whose intentions are just to confuse you and make you doubt.

      What you absolutely shouldn’t listen to are trolls who tell you to just trust that Signal is not abusing the data it’s collecting about you. The first rule of security is that it can’t be faith based.

      • The Hobbyist@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        22 days ago

        What are you talking about? you get a phone number from signal, and what will you be able to derive from it? there is no graph. signal does not hold any “relationships” information.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      22 days ago

      Its the tankies.

      Honestly if they can recommend something better I’m all for it but I haven’t heard anything.

      • Majestic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        22 days ago

        Take a look here for some alternatives:

        https://dessalines.github.io/essays/why_not_signal.html#good-alternatives

        • Matrix
        • XMPP
        • Briar
        • SimpleX

        Also just because there are no alternatives doesn’t mean your default position should be we just have to trust whatever exists now because it’s good enough. Or that we can’t criticize it ruthlessly, distrust it. Call it out and as a result of that build perhaps the desire for something better, a fix as it were.

        The evidence and history clearly points towards Signal being very suspicious and likely in bed with the feds. This is not conspiracy thinking. Conspiracy thinking is thinking that the country/empire that gave away old German engima machines whose code they’d cracked to developing countries without telling them they’d cracked it in the late 40s/early 50s, that went on to establish a crypto company just to subvert its encryption. That’s done everything Snowden revealed has in fact changed suddenly for the first time in half a century for no particular reason and not to its own benefit. That’s fanciful thinking. That’s a leap of logic away from the proven trends, the pattern of behavior, and indeed the incentivizes to continue using their dominant position to maintain dominance and power. They didn’t back down on the clipper chip because they just gave up and decided to let people have privacy and rights. They gave up on it because they found better ways of achieving the same results with plausible deniability.

        Also why is everything “tankies” with you people. Privacy advocates point out the obvious and suddenly it’s a communist conspiracy. LOL

        • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          21 days ago
          • Matrix and XMPP are not alternatives and are worse for privacy and security

          • Simplex Chat is actually is pretty sold but isn’t the most user friendly

          • Briar is very cool but its complexity makes it hard to use. It also has problems with real time communications

          • BeeDemocracy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            20 days ago

            Matrix and XMPP are not alternatives and are worse for privacy and security

            XMPP is exactly as good or bad for privacy as the servers and clients you choose. It’s a protocol, not a service. Unlike Signal, which is a brand/app/service package.

              • BeeDemocracy@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                15 days ago

                The protocol is worse for privacy

                ‘Trust me bro’

                The problem is, you’re comparing apples with orchards. Analogous would be: ‘email is worse for privacy than yahoomail’. Plus in this scenario yahoomail only lets you send emails to yahoomail addresses.