- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
Link to article from main Lemmy❤️ developer about Signal privacy. Mostly fair points. I kinda distrust so centralized services but basically we have no other options (Matrix is buggy in many aspects). What can you say about this article?
You must log in or register to comment.
This same thing has been reposted here so much. So I am going to copy-paste my original response once again.
Governments routinely fund the development of secure and open communication systems because they themselves benefit from having such communication tools which can be trusted. By the logic presented in this “essay”, one shouldn’t be using the internet at all. What you need to check is whether Signal’s technical claims about its encryption is true or not. There is nothing in this article that raises any question on Signal’s encryption. We already know how much data Signal has on its users through their responses to various legal subpoenas over the years (spoiler: its pretty much nothing).
Here are some cool links for you to check out:
https://signal.org/bigbrother/
https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/new-documents-reveal-government-effort-impose-secrecy-encryptionWhy is it beneficial for the government to have these tools? They already have such for internal use. I am sure that the officials do not use Signal. Why not kill Signal as an organization so that users don’t even think of leaving WhatsApp?
You are really underestimating how hard it is build and maintain such easy to use and secure services. So using a trusted service like Signal is convenient. And government officials across the world use it:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/in-encryption-push-senate-approves-signal-for-encrypted-messaging/
https://theprint.in/tech/netanyahu-zelenskyy-join-world-leaders-to-signal-each-other-why-is-encrypted-app-popular/1204419/
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-commission-to-staff-switch-to-signal-messaging-app/And moreover, the essay by the tankie creator of Lemmy does the mistake of assuming everything the US government funds or has funded at some point as nefarious. The US government is not unified by any stretch of the imagination. It is full of competing interests and some agencies do want to support ideas like freedom of information and right to privacy. If you look at the things that the Open Technology Fund has donated to, you will see that it has pretty much stuck to its objective of supporting “open technologies and communities that increase free expression, circumvent censorship, and obstruct repressive surveillance.”
And I still fail to see any real evidence for the claim that Signal’s privacy is compromised.
Very good answer, thank you! Why some agencies in the US government may want world to be more private? It is not in their interests as I understand.
The interests of government agencies are not aligned and quite often contradict each other. Not all of them want to snoop on you.
This is posted relatively often, and every time it is posted I feel compelled to note that said dev has not articulated any real reason to consider Signal insecure beyond an implicit conspiracy theory with no real meat to it.
“Signal’s use luckily never caught on by the general public of China (or the Hong Kong Administrative region), whose government prefers autonomy, rather than letting US tech control its communication platforms, as most of the rest of the world naively allows.”
When you’re holding up China as an example for the world to follow for privacy, I have a hard time taking ANYTHING else you’re claiming seriously.
“Signal’s use luckily never caught on by the general public of China (or the Hong Kong Administrative region), whose government prefers autonomy, rather than letting US tech control its communication platforms, as most of the rest of the world naively allows.”
When you’re holding up China as an example for the world to follow for privacy
I interpret that quote to say that China doesn’t trust US tech like the rest of the world does. It’s not saying that China has more privacy and the rest of the world should follow, it’s saying that the rest of the world also shouldn’t be so naively trustworthy of US tech either.
And they offer no reasonable basis for distrusting Signal, the tech that they attempt to vilify. Given said dev’s past comments, it is reasonable to infer that the reference to China presents them as an example to be followed here.
Ok, two things are happening here.
they offer no reasonable basis for distrusting Signal, the tech that they attempt to vilify.
One, is that they did provide what they considered reasonable basis for distrusting Signal. Given that they thought Signal should not be trusted, the quote you posted is pretty obviously to be interpreted as: thankfully China hasn’t naively adopted a compromised communications platform with a USA intelligence backdoor. Now, if you want to say their basis for distrust is not reasonable, or is false, that’s completely fine. But in doing so it doesn’t change the author’s intent behind the quote which you posted.
Given said dev’s past comments, it is reasonable to infer that the reference to China presents them as an example to be followed here.
Two, is that it should be pretty clear they are saying China should be followed here in a very specific and explicit way: they aren’t saying follow China in every way under the sun. It’s very obvious from context and from what is explicitly said that they mean: China’s distrust and refusal to adopt (what they consider) a platform with USA backdoors should be followed. And I think that’s an entirely reasonable statement to make. No one should naively adopt compromised communications platforms.
There is no honest reading of the quote (especially given the rest of the context of the essay leading up to the quote) that could lead someone to conclude that this particular essay is (1) advocating for and supporting China spying on its citizens and (2) advocating for other countries following China in spying on citizens. It’s pretty obvious the only honest reading of this is: “I believe Signal has USA backdoors. Given that, I’m glad China hasn’t adopted its use heavily. I also think other countries should follow China in not naively accepting such technologies”.
Again, you can disagree with the foundational reasons for distrust, and that could be very useful. But painting the essay and quote the way you (and others here) are is just intellectually dishonest. Disagree with what is actually said, not with what you imagine (or wish) was said.
