Signal doesn’t promise anonymity. If you’re using Signal with the intent of being anonymous, well, there are better services for that. For sending E2EE messages, Signal does well; that is its purpose.

Key of the previous comment is reasonable. One might as well say that Trump provided a reasonable basis for denying the election results, or that climate deniers are being reasonable in denying the wealth of evidence supporting the idea of man-made climate change. If we’re willing to reject abjectly idiotic claims in one case, we should be rejecting them across the board whether we like the politics of the person in question or not.

TL;DR: The author is engaging in agenda driven conspiracy porn which they know or should know is false. As such, it is reasonable to assume that they’re either willfully ignorant or acting in bad faith.

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.

TLDR, the thought is that the USA is spying on users of Signal because some early funding came from the US government. But the evidence suggests not; indeed, governments worldwide are targeting Signal et al because they don’t LIKE that they can’t just demand access from providers.

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.

I’m intrigued (Visionary here) but not seeing enough to switch from Tresorit just yet. I do love where this is going, though!

The only sensible solution to this sort of thing is to liquidate any company guilty of this.

@Unlucky_Boot3467 This is an interesting read for sure, but I see no concrete evidence in the essay that suggests that Signal is insecure. Signal was never anonymous; users who have Signal accounts (myself included) are well aware that their Signal ID is tied to their phone number. If Signal were not offering the E2EE promised, that would be huge… but nothing in the evidence or the article suggests that that this the case.

To be sure, I think Matrix great. But I have to wonder at the agenda behind the article… indirect initial funding from the US government at the outset, even absent malfeasance on Signal’s part, is bad, while direct current endorsement of Matrix by the French government is… good? to be clear, I consider neither problematic on their own, but there doesn’t appear to be much in the way of logic behind that reasoning.

Overall, I’d like to see us move away from centralized control of communication… and Matrix might in fact be that eventual solution. But that doesn’t mean that Signal isn’t safe for those who understand that it is not, generally speaking, anonymous to use.