That's romanticizing history. When communication via post became economically feasible for a large number of citizens its surveillance began--in the 19th century. I'll make a more contentious point: religion played the role of what modern-states now call domestic intelligence. The state's desire to control (that's what surveillance is about) has always been there. It's an intrinsic aspect of a state. Technology only allows what would have been economically unfeasible to now enter the realm of feasibility.

What one should take away from this article is that: Signal is a central point that can be compromised silently; Signal has the power to revoke your access to its software at any time (leaving the Canadian 'market'). Both point to Signal's users being rubes. They are not in control of the software and are subjugated by a private dictatorship branded 'Signal'. Users should not be concerned about the government's will here (it's the same; it has not changed). Users should be concerned that the private dictatorship--that they paradoxically hold dear--is a private dictatorship.

Signal users yearn to be subjugated and told sweet lies.