We each have our own levels of acceptable privacy posture. Signal make it easier for the masses to get off, say, Whatsapp and feel little to no real hurdles. I agree with you, though, that the phone number and physical phone requirements are a hard sell for people with a more strict posture requirement, which was the reason it took me long to get on it. But, alas, I had to settle, because SimpleX wasn’t available on iOS at the time (my family and friends are on iphones) and it is much more private that Hangouts or Whatsapp (which I still can’t believe we were on). We did try Matrix for a time, but it wasn’t “production ready” then, which was a deterrent to them as well. Signal being centralized wouldn’t be a huge deterrent for me, if it wasn’t for their continuous push to keep it that way and them actively preventing decentralization, both of which have been scratching me the wrong way for a while. I had a conversation with my groups to switch to something else, but they’re not all on board. Signal, they say, is “as easy as Whatsapp and more private”. I mean… they’re right, but we could have better.

Care to elaborate? I haven’t heard anything concrete against it.

I agree with you. I just don’t think “they” will take that fact and just sit with it. I think “they” will do everything they can to get multiple backdoors in there (and I use the term ‘backdoor’ loosely to mean anything that can programmatically circumvent the encryption). There are more of them, in terms of power and funding, than there are of us. They will eventually succeed, if only for short times each interval. That’s why I wrote that the solution is a chat revolution. I don’t know what that will look like, but we need something they can’t successfully attack.

Edit: autocorrect

Theoretically, yes. But if it’s a legal entity that added it, they can easily circumvent any attempt to eradicate it. Or, in a more extreme way, criminalize FOSS chat apps altogether, then the code will have to be analyzed in a RE environment. Maybe the non FOSS server code is where the backdoor is added. There are so many relatively hidden ways to compromise a chat app’s supply chain.

Honestly, neither will I. No one should.

While I do love your optimism and appreciate the addition of this software to our (collective) arsenal, it absolutely can. Chat Control can force the developers to add back doors, for example, or to start log collection to include IPs and PSPs, etc. Please don’t misunderstand, I’m not negating the benefits of Amnesichat at all. It’s awesome. But, being a chat, it would still fall under the same regulatory nonsense as Briar, for example, which can also be run through Tor. Now, whether the developers adhere to Chat Control regulations, is another thing altogether.

Or Briar. Or Signal. Or so many others that have been audited throughput the years. While I appreciate the addition of Amnesichat to this arsenal, it has yet to be properly audited and is, therefore, not yet trusted.

Chat Control, if passed, will affect this chat as well. The only way to bypass it, would be chat revolution.

So, it’s win win. Good scenario.

Saw this on Sunday. I think it fits here…

And it’s free.

It’s a dull knife. The only thing more dangerous than a sharp knife, is a dull one.

Oh, you are correct. But this doesn’t stop them from attempting to do so at every turn.

This is amazing!

I’m sure there’s something in the Microsoft tos that allows them to do this on any product. Kind of like how signing up for Disney+ prevents someone from suing Disney theme park over negligent homicide.

I think what they attribute to that “android feel”, is google spying on them at every turn.

Canceled like Google Circles? Or canceled like Microsoft Recall?

This looks really good.

“special people” until they’re not haha

They forget that they are also the people, and all they’re doing is helping the corpos gain more power (make no mistake, the governments are a front for the corpos).

Ok, good. I thought I was the only one who saw this connection. It’s not that the police are against facial recog or that they don’t want the NFL or anyone else to use it, it’s that they’re aware of the privacy degradation it causes, and don’t want themselves (the police workers of the event) subjected to it. It’s fine if we, the attendees, are subjected to it, just not them. Oh, what a world.

Literally how hackers operate.

The hackers need to succeed once to get in. You need to succeed every time to not fail.

They really shouldn’t be sending the password over the line at all. It should be local hashed/salted, encrypted, and then sent. So plaintext length really shouldn’t matter much, if at all. But I see your point.

Maybe it’s also a “it’s the way we’ve always done it” BS that plays into it, too?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the only reason to limit password length, is to save carrying cost on the database. But the only reason that this would be value added, is if the passwords are encrypted in reversible encryption, instead of hashed. Isn’t this against some CISA recommendation?

Why use this instead of Veracrypt?

I use Bitwarden for personal, and Keeper for work. Both great so far.

I agree. This is has been an absolute pleasure to read. Like a proper structured debate, where neither side is wrong, but they’re both right.

Good point. Edited.

In a capitalist world, it is possible (and prudent) to treat your customers like customers. Your line will still go up, and for longer. Yes, if you treat them like products, your line will go up faster, until it won’t.

E: if they made this ad network an opt-in with a proper explanation, many people would have opted in. Not everyone, but many would have. And their reputation would not have been sullied.

Mozilla wants us to love Firefox again? Ok, well, it’s actually pretty simple: treat us like customers users, instead of products again. Make the product for us, not for the corpos. Strange how betrayal turns a friend into a foe, isn’t it…

E: changed customers to users, as another user here suggested the difference between them. (thanks, fellow lemming!)

Even UBO doesn’t work here. Zapping the element, just pops it back up. Crazy

E: disabling js does seem to allow access to the site and articles, though you can’t interact with anything (comments and such).

Oh! HHahhahhhHah! That’s a good joke! Wooshed right over my head hahahahahahahah!

Edit: correct autocorrect

Literally the header image…

Similar tech has been around for a while, and it almost always gets beaten.

Ghost is $170 (US, I’m assuming). Not great but not bad for a wicked cool looking pair of sunglasses. Considering Ray-Bans are around $200 (and, no offense, look like they’re from Tesco), and that Ghost are privacy focused, I’d say that price seems not that bad. Still high, though.

I mean, have you met people?

I mean… I try not to

Of course. Same here. But those videos would work on any network, not just Google’s. The reasons they’re there are plenty, and I won’t pretend to know them all. However yt started as an entertainment space, and shifted into other spaces. What I’m proposing, is that we can have those spaces elsewhere, but we need to start somewhere. The easiest way to get people to start doing something, is by making it entertaining.