this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
537 points (96.4% liked)

Privacy

31872 readers
620 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Law enforcement doesn't request data frequently enough in order to build a social graph. Also they probably don't need to as Google and Apple likely have your contacts.

Saying that it is somehow a tool for mass surveillance is frankly wrong. It has its issues but it also balances ease of use. It is the most successful secure messager out there. (WhatsApp doesn't count)

Sure it has problems. I personally don't understand there refusal to be on F-droid. However, phone numbers are great for ease of use and help prevent spam. You need to give your personal information to get a phone number. Signal also has very nice video calls which no other messager can seem to replicate.

[–] aspensmonster@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Law enforcement doesn’t request data frequently enough in order to build a social graph. Also they probably don’t need to as Google and Apple likely have your contacts.

They don't need to request data. They have first-class access to the data themselves. Snowden informed us of this over a decade ago.

Saying that it is somehow a tool for mass surveillance is frankly wrong.

Signal per se is not the mass surveillance tool. Its dependence on Google is the mass surveillance tool.

However, phone numbers are great for ease of use and help prevent spam.

And there's nothing wrong with allowing that ease-of-use flow for users that don't need anonymity. The problem is disallowing anonymous users.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Signal is not dependent on Google. Also to my knowledge Signal isn't part of AT&T

[–] aspensmonster@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Signal is not dependent on Google.

It literally is though.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If that were the case Molly FOSS wouldn't exist

[–] aspensmonster@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 2 months ago

If that were the case Molly FOSS wouldn’t exist

I'm not speaking of hard dependence as in "the app can't work without it." I'm speaking to the default behavior of the Signal application:

  1. It connects to Google
  2. It does not make efforts to anonymize traffic
  3. It does makes efforts to prevent anonymous sign-ups

Molly FOSS choosing different defaults doesn't change the fact that the "Signal" client app, which accounts for the vast majority of clients within the network, is dependent on Google.

And in either case -- using Google's Firebase system, or using Signal's websocket system -- the metadata under discussion is still not protected; the NSA doesn't care if they're wired into Google's data centers or Signal's. They'll be snooping the connections either way. And in either case, the requirement of a phone number is still present.

Perhaps I should restate my claim:

Signal per se is not the mass surveillance tool. Its ~~dependence on Google~~ design choices of (1) not forcing an anonymization overlay, and (2) forcing the use of a phone number, is the mass surveillance tool.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)