https://lawrence.video/The Signal Foundationhttps://signalfoundation.org/Matthew Green Article on Signalhttps://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2024/08/25/t...
I don’t trust Signal. Haven’t used it since it went down when people and capitol rioters fled WhatsApp and signed up. My understanding is it’s a brittle centralized system just like WhatsApp.
AND back when I did use it, the app had dark patterns that included spamming all your contacts when you set up the app.
Matrix still needs work, but it is the future in this space.
I don’t trust Signal. Haven’t used it since it went down when people and capitol rioters fled WhatsApp and signed up. My understanding is it’s a brittle centralized system just like WhatsApp.
Imo, there are more components to trust than service reliability (iiuc) — eg: trust in the underlying protocol, trust in the governing body etc.
Is that an “agree” as in you hadn’t considered what I said, or that you agree to that in addition? If it was the latter, I should clarify that I wasn’t adding supplementary information — I was outlining what I thought was a flaw in your rationale (eg argument from ignorance) for distrust in Signal.
It’s an agree as in I don’t really feel like arguing with another user here. I don’t buy the point about metadata when Signal, a centralized service like Discord (why are we talking about Discord?), may be able to scrape it too. Or the point about anonymity when Signal is far from the right tool for that purpose too, see above “spams your contact list.”
For reliability, I’m not concerned with how much RAM Signal’s servers have. What I should have highlighted is that Signal can nuke your communications on accident / on purpose / under coercion. And it’s proven because they’ve already done it before. Mitigate that by having a backup system set up? That necessarily doubles your surface area for breaks in privacy or whatever a given user is worried about. So starting with Signal in the first place doesn’t make sense to me.
Matrix still needs work, but it is the future in this space.
Matrix can send encrypted events [1.1], but, imo, the Matrix protocol is a firehose of metadata [1.3][1.2]. I’d argue that metadata leakage doesn’t lend itself well to anonymity; if one seeks anonymity, then I think they should seek to reduce their metadata footprint, as, logically, any information is better than no information when trying to identify someone.
But I’d also view a singular commercial company’s no-cost product as not being a long term bet on privacy/anonymity.
Oh I completely agree with the idea that a federated service, like Matrix [1], is far preferable to a centralized one, eg Discord [2]; I have no issue with using Matrix (I personally use it extensively) I just think one should be careful with the idea of using it with the intent of being anonymous.
Matrix defines a set of open APIs for decentralised communication, suitable for securely publishing, persisting and subscribing to data over a global open federation of servers with no single point of control. […]
I don’t trust Signal. Haven’t used it since it went down when people and capitol rioters fled WhatsApp and signed up. My understanding is it’s a brittle centralized system just like WhatsApp.
AND back when I did use it, the app had dark patterns that included spamming all your contacts when you set up the app.
Matrix still needs work, but it is the future in this space.
Imo, there are more components to trust than service reliability (iiuc) — eg: trust in the underlying protocol, trust in the governing body etc.
Yes, I agree.
Is that an “agree” as in you hadn’t considered what I said, or that you agree to that in addition? If it was the latter, I should clarify that I wasn’t adding supplementary information — I was outlining what I thought was a flaw in your rationale (eg argument from ignorance) for distrust in Signal.
It’s an agree as in I don’t really feel like arguing with another user here. I don’t buy the point about metadata when Signal, a centralized service like Discord (why are we talking about Discord?), may be able to scrape it too. Or the point about anonymity when Signal is far from the right tool for that purpose too, see above “spams your contact list.”
For reliability, I’m not concerned with how much RAM Signal’s servers have. What I should have highlighted is that Signal can nuke your communications on accident / on purpose / under coercion. And it’s proven because they’ve already done it before. Mitigate that by having a backup system set up? That necessarily doubles your surface area for breaks in privacy or whatever a given user is worried about. So starting with Signal in the first place doesn’t make sense to me.
Matrix can send encrypted events [1.1], but, imo, the Matrix protocol is a firehose of metadata [1.3][1.2]. I’d argue that metadata leakage doesn’t lend itself well to anonymity; if one seeks anonymity, then I think they should seek to reduce their metadata footprint, as, logically, any information is better than no information when trying to identify someone.
References
m.room.message msgtypes” (§10.12.1.7.1). https://spec.matrix.org/v1.12/client-server-api/#extensions-to-mroommessage-msgtypes.I think that’s fair, maybe I should have said efforts like Matrix.
But I’d also view a singular commercial company’s no-cost product as not being a long term bet on privacy/anonymity.
Oh I completely agree with the idea that a federated service, like Matrix [1], is far preferable to a centralized one, eg Discord [2]; I have no issue with using Matrix (I personally use it extensively) I just think one should be careful with the idea of using it with the intent of being anonymous.
References