Invidious link: https://invidious.tiekoetter.com/watch?v=TzGEmXync5M
An overview of Signal’s long list of flaws (phone number id, Play service payments, centralized infrastructure, etc) and the history of The Signal Foundation of ignoring many of these issues.
Signal is disappointing. And I am tired of pretending that it’s not. I have been using and recommending Signal for longer than it existed. Signal just came out with a feature we have been waiting for for 8 years.
You see 8 years ago, the only flaw Signal had was that it required a phone number to register and find contacts. This was bad, because it meant you couldn’t get an anonymous Signal account, which meant you could get hacked or abused by anyone who knew your phone number. It was also easy for authoritarians to censor people’s access to Signal by denying phone registrations by country code.
The reason for the phone number requirement was to prevent spam. The primary function, was to use your phonebook to quickly onboard new users and send notifications whenever anyone in your contact list signed up on Signal. A very convenient Silicon Valley feature that allowed people to quickly connect with their friends and also let domestic abusers find out their victims are trying to contact a lawyer’s office over Signal.
I’ve been using Signal since before it was called Signal. I’m a big fan, and I still use it and recommend it. No, it isn’t perfect, but for my needs, it’s still the best all-around. I am always interested in alternatives, but they mostly haven’t stacked up. Top contender for me right now is DeltaChat. I’m also playing around with Sideband/reticulum, which is a super interesting project, but nowhere near ready for primetime.
Signal is far away from perfect but unfortunately you have to make a tradeoff between security and convenience. The best messenger is useless if you are the only one willing to install it.
Spot on. It also doesn’t claim to to offer anonymity, there are other apps for that.
Forreal. The ease of use is the only reason I was able to get my family and friends to migrate, instead of using SMS or FB Messenger. The pros of this accomplishment greatly outweigh the cons.
it’s surprising to learn this – i had assumed that whatsapp was a bigger privacy nightmare.
WhatsApp is absolutely a bigger privacy nightmare
I think you may have misread something. Signal is the golden standard for privacy. There are other issues with anonymity, longevity, stability, security, and corporate platform dependence that are discussed in the video.
And after profusely spitting on it, what do you suggest to replace it with?
Clickbait.
Because that’s the thing with these videos: they tear Signal apart, and then… nothing. No alternative proposed. And even when these people have one, it’s never something normal humans actually use in any significant number.
Signal isn’t perfect, I won’t pretend otherwise. But my actual choice isn’t between Signal and some hypothetical perfect messenger. It’s between Signal and Messenger, WhatsApp and Telegram. On that scale, Signal wins, and it’s not even close.
And no, my family and friends are not moving to Matrix. Getting them all on Signal was already a nightmare. I’m not going to explain homeservers and Matrix IDs to my relatives. If your alternative requires a tutorial to even register, it’s not a replacement, it’s a hobby for tech enthusiasts.
So yes, keep the pressure on the Signal Foundation, some of it is deserved. But until a better option actually gains mainstream traction, Signal remains the only realistic way to get regular people out of Meta’s and Telegram’s data
Try DeltaChat. Seriously.
I don’t know if you wrote this in bad faith, but there are many alternative chat applications and platforms mentioned during the video that are more secure than signal.
I agree, the title of the video is awful.
The author mentions many times how they support Signal, but we shouldnt just accept their excuses for the lack of advancement on certain issues just because it’s the most convenient option.
We should all switch to using one-time pads. Sure, it’s not as convenient, but I assume everyone will understand.
The alternative is clear: Matrix.
I think your family have a point to not listen to you if yoy previously switch them to shitty things like Signal.
let domestic abusers find out their victims are trying to contact a lawyer’s office over Signal.
Uhhhh no, it sure doesn’t do that…
The best messaging app is the most private and secure app I can actually get people to install. I can’t get anyone to install SimpleX or Matrix.
SimpleX has been a lot easier.
Got my boio, roomie, and a coupla frens there.
Unfortunately, Simplex seems to be developed by a fascist: https://drewdevault.com/weird-guys/
Devault is a pederast freak. Pick your poison, I guess.
“let domestic abusers find out their victims are trying to contact a lawyer’s office over Signal”
It lets anyone know you have a Signal account true, although you can (and have been able to for a while?) disable being found by phone number so…
No. You can still initiate signing up with a phone number to determine if they are on Signal.
One thing to note, Signal has never purported to be “private”. It is “secure”. There’s a huge difference. Everyone has to find a balance between privacy and usability. Not having phone ID means no way to reduce the chance a user is bot as well as if you don’t register a personal name or phone number or anything else traceable, it makes it difficult for users to find eachother. And as for tracking the source and destination of messages, again if those are random destination routing IDs for a particular conversation, it makes it difficult to route to multiple devices. And if you don’t include source identifiers then there’s no way to block a spammer or other hostile user or provide delivery receipts to the sender. If you eliminate the storage of messages on the centralized server entirely and have it just be for routing, then if a device is offline at the moment a message is composed, it can’t be sent. These are just some examples of privacy vs usability. I won’t go into real-time video and audio as they are even more complex.
What signal is, is a system that does not store the keys for the messages themselves, thus as long as all user’s devices are secure, the messages are secure. This it does very well.
If you want a private messaging system, there are many options out there, but Signal needs to be usable for the masses of technically illiterate as well as secure. These are more for things like journalist who need privacy for whistleblowers. In that case the lack of usability is a reasonable tradeoff.
Of course I’m oversimplifying some things, but the basic idea is that Signal is not a private messaging app, it is a secure messaging app.
Signal has never purported to be “private”
Uhhhh yes it has? That’s like the main thing it’s purported to be? You can control + F “privacy” 4 separate times on the homepage. I think you’re conflating this with anonymity .
It’s more private than something like Facebook Messenger or most other popular chat apps, that’s not it’s primary purpose and again, it does not purport to 100% privacy as it does to 100% security of messages. Anonymity is one way to achieve privacy, but it isn’t the only way. Unfortunately, it’s the only way if you want to obey laws in most countries, basically privacy by making it impossible for the company to give any information to police, courts, etc.
The OP though is primarily complaining about privacy and not security and that’s what I’m trying to differentiate. It’s never ever said it gives a 100% private experience but does purport to making messages content as secure as possible.
that’s not it’s primary purpose and again, it does not purport to 100% privacy
Again, it does and it is. It’s plastered all over every webpage and document they have. You are confused.
The OP though is primarily complaining about privacy and not security and that’s what I’m trying to differentiate
Again, OP video is referring to anonymity, among other things.
Google private vs secure communications. Privacy is the company not sharing information about your communications. Legally this is nearly impossible for a corporate entity without anonymity. But they could just as easily keep the data about who you are talking to secured and thus your privacy protected. They are private commercially in that they don’t sell that information like most messaging apps, but they can’t refuse an order from a government entity and thus are not 100% private. Again anonymity is one method of keeping your data private, the other is to have 100% control over that data like if you self hosted the central server then Signal could be private while still not being anonymous.
So anonymity is the only legal say to be private, but it isn’t the only way to be private. They do keep your data private from data brokers, thus some privacy, but not 100%. Anonymity is much more difficult to accomplish while maintaining usability. Privacy is only difficult to accomplish while maintaining functionality because of legal obligations. So their policies are privacy oriented, but they can’t guarantee that without anonymity which they can’t do without loss of functionality.
What they can do, and do well, is security. Secure messages, security of metadata in motion, etc., but metadata at rest while secure, is not private from governments, only from corporations (currently, though this could change and is why people think they want anonymity not realizing they lose functionality.) Signal is secure, and as private as it can given the legal obligations, but it could change policies and decide not to keep your data private and then anonymity is needed which is what the OP is saying they need, but Signal has never said they will provide.
Google private vs secure communications.
No u.
Privacy is the company not sharing information about your communications. Legally this is nearly impossible for a corporate entity without anonymity.
It isn’t, and they don’t.
they can’t refuse an order from a government entity and thus are not 100% private
They don’t have to, because they are 100% private. They don’t have information to share.
No u.
I wasn’t even following þe argument but þis caught my eye.
Þank you 😂
No they absolutely know who every message on the server came from and who it’s bound for as well as various other metadata. Governments can request this data as, while it is stored securely, the company has access and thus must give this information upon receiving valid requests. This is not 100% privacy especially in cases of things like journalists and government corruption whistleblowers. They can’t say what they said, but they can say a particular user talked to a journalist.
Uhhhh no? They absolutely do not? And the page I just linked you to proves it. It’s full of requests from the government where they did not provide any of the information you suggested.
The gripes are valid but the title is sensational.
It’s very bad title but I didn’t want to change the original
I don’t like the phone number requirement either, but is there a better alternative?
Usernames, like nearly every other messenger…
That would be nice, but I meant an alternative to Signal. Sorry I wasn’t very clear.
Matix FTW
Thanks I’ll have to check it out!
Signal has had usernames for a good while now. It’s mentioned in the video. Unfortunately they don’t negate the need for a phone number.
“Better” is subjective. Absolutely there are “better” alternatives that are more resilient, but they’re also more complicated to understand and use.
This is letting perfection be the enemy of progress. Lots of complaints, but what realistic alternative is there?
Matrix is far more superior to Signal, both in usability and privacy!
Thanks, need to look into this.
It is 1000% not superior in usability.
I think that’s one of the things: it’s hard enough to convince people to use Signal. It’s probably not the best choice, but I can get (some) people to use it.
Damn you(r implications) are right. There’s no alternative messengers around 😔 /s
Alternative messengers which are privacy focused or friendly?
I noticed you didn’t list any.
