• boerbiet ( boerbiet@feddit.nl ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      It really depends on your use case. Most of my simple chat messages are the same as I would have in any public space. I have no need for encryption, I have need for convenience in that regard. With Telegram I have my chat history on all devices and don’t need to use my phone to connect which are two must-haves for me. For my use case, Signal is the worse option. That doesn’t make Signal bad, just not suitable for me.

      As a privacy-concious person I am very much aware of the non-secure nature of my chats, but since that is not a factor of consideration to me when it comes to casual chats with a few friends and family members. The worst thing Telegram could do is analyse my chats and … then what?

        • hruzgar ( hruzgar@feddit.de ) 
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago
          1. The Encryption algorithm of Signal is basically the same algorithms proposed by the US gov in 2000. There is no way they would release these encryption algorithms if they couldn’t break them themsleves
          2. If you would see which organisations are supporting Signal (look at where Signal gets all the money), you would also agree with me. There is no way these organasations are supporting them for your privacy. Why would they? The same people who are trying their best to get all your data. Believing this is just pure naivity imo but call me what you want
          • refalo ( refalo@programming.dev ) 
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 years ago

            Please stop spreading FUD.

            1. The encryption used by Signal would not be used if it could be easily broken. It’s fully open source and is regularly audited. People would not recommend it if it were so broken like you say; this is just fearmongering.

            2. lol, lmao even

            • hruzgar ( hruzgar@feddit.de ) 
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 years ago

              I’m not forcing you to believe anything. Also this is a free platform where I can say what I think. I won’t hold myself back from expressing my view only because the majority has a different opinikn (looking at the downvotes). I personally just wouldn’t trust it. And it also doesn’t have any difference to Whatsapp and co. (encryprion algos are the same) which completely removes the purpose of it even existing (ik open source is still an argument. But they don’t have reproducable builds so even that falls apart) so there really isn’t any reason for me to switch to it or promote it to anybody at all.

  • JustMarkov ( JustMarkov@lemmy.ml ) Banned
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Let’s be honest, Signal is not perfect either:

    • It requires your phone number
    • It has had some suspicious funding sources
      (UPD: It was funded by CIA)
      (UPD2: Here I will quote www.securemessagingapps.com:

    This matters because “money talks”, as the saying goes. If the company or person behind the money is likely to have reason not to protect customers’ privacy, it’s important to know. This could be indicative of the company not doing as they say (Google, Whatsapp, for example) or changing their mind once they’ve onboarded enough customers from whom they can make money.

    (I’m gonna find sources for the last two statements a bit later to not be unsubstantiated)
    Done.

    Although, we all can agree, that Signal is still better than Telegram, or WhatsApp, or Threema, or whatever.
    Still, we probably want to look at the better alternatives, like Simplex or Session.

    • EngineerGaming ( EngineerGaming@feddit.nl ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Session is also sus because you effectively cannot host a node, last I have seen. They claim it is “against a Sybil attack” but all it does is making sure only people wih large disposable funds can have nodes, and the effect might be the exact opposite.

      Simplex is more interesting in this regard because while I am concerned with initial centralization (the default servers), they made hosting your own easy. But I personally stick with imperfect yet trusty XMPP.

      • Brayd ( brayd@discuss.tchncs.de ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        SimpleX is great. BUT it’s not user friendly. Thus general adoption for the average user will be hard. Don’t get me wrong using the app itself is easy but as soon as someone switches their phone that doesn’t have technical knowledge they will loose their chats because they won’t understand the concept of moving their DB. Since you don’t have an identifier like a phone number with SimpleX those people could even lose contacts as a whole since they generate a new DB, hurting their social connections.

        That’s the reason I personally never recommend SimpleX to anyone who doesn’t have the technical knowledge to understand stuff like that.

    • Numberone ( Numberone@startrek.website ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Signal no longer requires a phone number. You can now create an account. Not sure if that helps your outlook on it, but yeah. It was a fairly recent update that this was rolled out.

      Edit: being told we still do need numbers to register. I haven’t gotten a new phone since well before the change was made, so I haven’t actually created an account and gone through the process. It looks like I misinterpreted what was going on when I read the changelog.

      • JustMarkov ( JustMarkov@lemmy.ml ) Banned
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 years ago

        That’s not true. A phone number is still required to register, you can just set it not to be public.

        Source: I just tried to register and it asked for my phone number.

      • Last I have seen, it still requires a number to register - it just doesn’t have to be public.

        What gets me the most is the requirement of a smartphone to register. No way I am trusting my non-public chats to a phone, so that means either Waydroid/VM (which creates issues with copypasting) or signal-cli (which is fairly inconvenient).

    • The Doctor ( drwho@beehaw.org ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      2 years ago

      Unable to decrypt message

      Unable to decrypt message

      Unable to decrypt message

      Unable to decrypt message

      Unable to decrypt message

      Unable to decrypt message

      …

    • Dessalines ( dessalines@lemmy.ml ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 years ago

      I don’t get it at all. There are plenty of platforms like matrix, xmpp, simplex that don’t require phone numbers tied to your identity. Signal has somehow managed to convince people that it’s a private platform, despite it being a US hosted service that requires phone numbers.

      • refalo ( refalo@programming.dev ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        Who have they convinced that it is private? I think it has more to do with the overall purpose of the platform. Signal is not made for large group chatting with strangers like Matrix.

      • to55 ( to55@discuss.tchncs.de ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Say the US government, in a worst-case scenario in which it constantly monitors all traffic that goes through Signal’s data centers, can ‘only’ see phone numbers, IP addresses and timestamps, right? Or am I forgetting something here?

        • Dessalines ( dessalines@lemmy.ml ) 
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 years ago

          Metadata and social graphs are more important than message content, esp since not many people have the time to read through individual messages to build meaning.

          Signal stores phone numbers (meaning your identity, and home address), and message timestamps: who texted who and when, and who’s in chats with who else. More than enough to build social graphs and connections, and also figure out where people are through their IP addresses.

          • Brayd ( brayd@discuss.tchncs.de ) 
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            Signal can’t see who is texting who. They can’t see which groups you are part of. Those information are end to end encrypted, same as your chats itself, your profile picture, your stories, etc.

            Signal doesn’t store message timestamps either.

            What Signal itself knows of you is your phone number, the timestamp of your registration, the timestamp of your last connection to the server. That’s it.

            Yes metadata is critical but Signal handles metadata very well. Indeed, even though I’m a fan of Matrix, better than Matrix. Matrix is a metadata nightmare due to it’s centralized structure and the way the protocol works.

            • Dessalines ( dessalines@lemmy.ml ) 
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 years ago

              Signal can’t see who is texting who. They can’t see which groups you are part of. Those information are end to end encrypted, same as your chats itself, your profile picture, your stories, etc.

              This is completely false. They can absolutely see who is texting who, in fact they need it to be able to route messages. They have message timestamps, and phone numbers stored in their database.

              Question, why do you “trust” signal? You can’t see what code their centralized server is running, unlike matrix which you can self-host and build from source. You don’t have to “trust” matrix, you can verify it for yourself.

          • to55 ( to55@discuss.tchncs.de ) 
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            Right. So arguably better than WhatsApp, where each users’ contact books, profile photos, bios, and each group chat name, picture and description is not E2E. But to call it ‘private’ is not logical, looking at the alternatives, of which some are much more private.

  • Sips' ( Sunny@slrpnk.net ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 years ago

    Nicely written article and a good read! However I had not heard of Threema before. It looks like a promising messaging app itself, anyone use it?

    • poVoq ( poVoq@slrpnk.net ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s relatively popular in DACH countries.

      I use it sometimes. It has its fair share of issues, and the back end is not open-source, but it is OK for the most part. Main benefit is that you don’t need a mobile number to sign up.

      But if you are looking for an alternative IM to use with friends and family, I would rather suggest XMPP, specifically Snikket.

    • I am using it to communicate with 3 people (our common ground as I don’t have an iPhone and don’t use Whatsapp).

      A few years ago it felt a bit ruff and awkward to use, but many updates later it is as fluent as any chat app.

      The security feels ok. Of course it would be a lot better, if they would open source their code.