mcc (@mcc@mastodon.social)
mastodon.socialAttached: 1 image
Basically, a good way to never trust "it's okay, the data is anonymized" again is simply knowing what the "Hemisphere Program" is.
https://www.eff.org/cases/hemisphere
In short, the US government got access to number from, number to, datetime, length and sometimes location information for every call passing through AT&T's network from 1987 to today.
Then they ran an algorithm to de-anonymize every burner phone based on behavior. They did this because maybe some of those burners were used by drug dealers.
You must log in or register to comment.
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
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn’t great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don’t promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
- 0 users online
- 57 users / day
- 383 users / week
- 1.5K users / month
- 5.7K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 2.76K Posts
- 68.9K Comments
- Modlog
Nope. You just discredited yourself.
I mean every device that connects to cell towers has an IMEI number. That can be used so that they can ban your device if necessary (eg someone stole it).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mobile_Equipment_Identity
As an aside, I’m very much convinced that Signal’s primary objective is to gather phone numbers in order to facilitate the US government tracing social networks of people who are already of interest Their main focus isn’t on what these people are discussing, they want to know who is talking to whom first and foremost. Signal’s subpar user experience is a feature from this perspective. Due to its inconvenience for the average person, those with a strong need or desire to communicate sensitive information are more likely to utilize it.
While Signal does have problems it is still pretty solid. You are right about the metadata though.
Anyway Simplex Chat exists and if you are really concerned you can use Briar
What’s with all the hate on Signal on here? I see probably one post a week trying to bash it because of some unproven conspiracy about it.
It’s a non-profit whose goal is to provide encrypted private chat.
Signal is literally just a chat service. The user experience is on par with any other service, except it’s backed by a trust in the company to not sell out on the end user because it’s a non-profit and isn’t beholden to any shareholders.
This dudes a Russian national with a cold war attitude. There is no convincing them as there views a set in stone. They are the opposite of people here in the US who think Russia is the devil itself.
With that being said, they are right in some respects. Companies really want to know who your friends are as it is very useful for advertising. Google messager and contacts keep a close eye on who you are talking to and when. The same goes for WhatsApp and any other messager that doesn’t protect metadata. I think the metadata is actually more valuable than the raw text. It also is concerning that Mobile carriers have complete access to everything about you including location, communication logs, communication metadata, internet traffic, SS number, and so much more. I don’t believe Signal to be harmful and it is definitely better than SMS and phone. Signal also has the advantage of being more reliable and popular than many apps. For instance, Signal calls are way better than Simplex Chat. Signal is also good for contacts you normally would use with regular phone service. You would use there phone number anyway so you aren’t losing anything.
The TL;DR is that Signal does not protect metadata which can be a problem. However, if you are using Google or Apple messaging it doesn’t really matter
It’s a non-profit run by ex-CIA people that’s hosted centrally in US, and being aggressively marketed as the only legitimate means of secure communication. Any time somebody points out the many problems associated with Signal, people swarm in to defend it as the one perfect secure chat platform that everybody should be using. Weird!
Yup, I got dogpiled with smarmy comments downplaying my pointing out that the Open Technology Fund (that’s affiliated with Radio Free Asia) audited the Signal Protocol. I still try to get people to switch to it from SMS or Whatsapp (with limited success, an ex was one of the few who already had it installed prior… cuz of their dealer), but it’s not like I have any illusions of organizing the revolution on the app
I feel like it being founded by ex CIA people is really not important. They aren’t actively working for the CIA and chances are they know the threat they face. Best to just ignore that part and focus on the technical details. At the end of the day any server you don’t control shouldn’t be trusted.
I feel like it’s very important in terms of understanding the potential goals and motivations of people working on a particular piece of technology. Just because they say they’re ex-CIA absolutely does not mean they’re not actively working for them. While technical issues are obvious here, that’s not always the case. For example, there’s a famous case where NSA suggested using a particular configuration that made SSH vulnerable. There was nothing that would jump out at anybody as being nefarious because you had to already know that a particular exploit existed to notice it. However, questioning the intentions of the NSA in this scenario would’ve helped avoid the exploit.
https://thehackernews.com/2015/10/nsa-crack-encryption.html
So what is your suggested platform?
I like Simplex Chat
I think if you really care about privacy then you basically have to run your own for people you know and trust. At that point it doesn’t really matter what it is. It also depends on your threat profile. If you don’t actually care that people know your contact network, then Signal or any other app is perfectly fine. For vast majority of people it really doesn’t matter. The point is that Signal isn’t a good solution for people who do genuinely care about privacy.
Running your own isn’t a great answer as that doesn’t necessarily mean it is secure. I personally like Simplex Chat and Briar. Matrix would be on the list if it was a little bit more stable.
Running your own server doesn’t necessarily mean it’s secure, but it’s a lot more likely to be secure than a server somebody else runs. The very fact that the server is only used by a handful of people you know and trust makes it infinitely more secure. Also as you say in your other reply:
and this Matrix? https://github.com/libremonde-org/paper-research-privacy-matrix.org/blob/master/part1/README.md
Matrix has a habit of eating my chats. They will suddenly be all “message can’t be decrypted”
Signal throws users who need anonymity (refugees, victims of domestic abuse, etc) under the bus by refusing to let users create accounts without phone numbers.
There’s no technical restriction. Signal just doesn’t care about helping these people.
I mean, I can see why it’s brewed an anti crowd. Founded by Radio Free Asia, a USA propaganda arm, and was funded up until late last year.
Additionally they have been aggressively pushed by the NED, an organization created to effectively conduct CIA color revolution in the overt.
And finally, compared to the other major US developed and funded project Tor, it is very centralized. It requires a phone number to use. The open source code is very oftenly neglected with the repository being out of date compared to the code being pushed out in updates.
Not every non-profit is your friend. Especially not non-profits that recieve funding largely from an agressive state that fashions itself as world police.
Now, I do use it as the US government is not currently in my threat model and I’m in need of an accessible messaging platform that I can get friends, family, and coworkers onto. But if for instance, the next administration extends transphobic policies federally you best believe I’m keeping that information off Signal.
Do you have evidence? And what do you think of the Molly fork?
I’m just pointing out the obvious reason why the US would be promoting the use of Signal so aggressively. Molly doesn’t address the problem of having to go through a central server located in US to use Signal. The only way to address it would be to host your own server for yourself and your friends, but at that point you don’t actually need Signal in the first palce.
Where is it being promoted/marketed? I haven’t seen that. I’m only aware of Signal because of tech news and privacy threads.
Tech news and privacy threads is precisely what influence the demographic using Signal. And now it’s become a cult.
You haven’t answered my core questions. You seem to be suggesting there’s a centralized or concerted push to promote/market Signal rather than an assortment of disconnected posts and articles. I’m open to that possibility, but what’s the evidence?
The evidence is that a lot of prominent people in tech, influencers if you like, incessantly promote Signal, and anybody pointing out problems with it gets immediately mobbed. I don’t have definitive proof for you, if that’s what you’re asking, but it’s certainly a weird situation that I haven’t seen happening with other messaging platforms. I find it odd to say the least.
I hadn’t noticed, but if that’s the case it certainly is weird and suspicious. I’ll keep an eye out, thanks.
Molly is just a bit of a hardened version. It’s still signal besides that
Who would have thought that phones would have privacy issues.
Who would have thought.
It’s impossible to “of think”.