I have never had a web host ask me to prove my identity, and I would probably pick a different one if they did.

They do have my credit card number though, so I’m far from anonymous.

That has a very high probability of convincing me not to use that app or service.

I’m imagining inserting a face-swap program into the software stack powering the webcam. I know it’s technically feasible with Video4Linux.

Fortunately, Lemmy has public modlogs. I do see some accounts banned for antisemitism recently, but they weren’t just supporting Palestine; they were using slurs in post titles or blaming everyone Jewish for the actions of Israel’s government. I would ban those accounts if it were up to me.

I understand Lemmy doesn’t provide a way to fuse multiple signals like the combination of a high-reputation account with a low-reputation IP address and it would be too much to ask volunteer server admins to develop their own. I’m OK with that answer. I don’t expect to dictate the terms by which they give me free services.

The part I didn’t like was their dim view of the fact that Mullvad actually provides privacy to its users. I believe private internet access is valuable to the world even if it enables some harms.

Over the past few years, there has been a great increase in websites using geoblocking. Half the local news sites in the USA block traffic from the EU for example, likely because they want to inject 300 advertising trackers in a manner that would violate EU law. I’ve been using Mullvad for years, and I am happy with it.

Sometimes lemmy.world blocks me from posting from it, which I am not happy with. They were even critical of its strict privacy stance, which I found to be a weird take from a fediverse project.

That’s a deep and insightful analysis which clearly illustrates why a prospective user might not want to choose SimpleX over other options. Very helpful indeed. Please post more takes like this.

I played with it briefly. It looks like a good choice for a situation where security is paramount and the people involved are reasonably motivated. I don’t have those needs, and nobody I know has asked to connect with me using it.

Signal, on the other hand is a familiar experience for most people with no new concepts to learn, and popular enough that I think most people will find a number of contacts already using it.

Several EU countries have constitutional prohibitions of mass surveillance of private communication.

Meta does not try to hide its ownership of Whatsapp; it actively cross-promotes its other services in the Whatsapp UI.

It does not have the option to encrypt group chats last I checked, and even the one-to-one encryption is not particularly well-liked among security experts.

This isn’t about casual chats with friends and family, but political activism against the actions of a country. People doing that should be willing to put at least a trivial amount of effort into security.

Several people in the comments suggest Telegram, which doesn’t even encrypt group chats. Signal is likely the best option if the group is under 1000 members.

That’s a distinction without a difference. It’s clearly risky to rely on that company for important communications.

I assume for bribes of some sort from Google

This one is stick, not carrot: apps are generally required to use Google’s notification system to be allowed in the Play Store.

Signal gets notifications without GMS. I think battery use and latency are a little higher. Molly, a fork can use UnifiedPush for better results.

they have a perfectly good messaging app already, “why can’t you just use that?”

Only running on one brand of phone would be the obvious reason here. Installing an additional app seems like a slightly smaller ask than buying a different phone.

This sounds like a pretty unusual configuration. I don’t imagine most people can be reached more reliably using an app that only runs on their tablet than apps that run on their phone.

they don’t have to go into a specific app and hope that I’m looking at it

Do the others not ring your phone? I don’t video call often, but when I do it’s usually with Signal, and that definitely rings my phone.

FaceTime vs, Zoom/GMeet/Jitsi

Is the advantage availability among your contacts, or something about the UX?

Certainly, but installing additional messaging apps on a phone has almost no cost on either iPhone or Android. It’s interesting that iPhone users seem to dislike the idea more.

Asking people to leave things means they’re losing a line of communication to friends, family, and interest groups who still use those things. It’s probably more productive to ask people to add the services you prefer rather than leave the ones they’re used to.

I’ve encountered some resistance from Americans who use iPhones and hate the idea of adding a third-party messaging app. None of them seem very interested in justifying that position.

Switching between apps was too much for us.

I’ve heard this from a few people, but I have trouble understanding it. Perhaps its because I’ve never had the experience of being able to send text messages to all of my contacts in one place, but the effort required seems pretty insignificant to me.

Getting around Google’s attestation with an unlocked bootloader requires root - I believe the go-to is Magisk and the Play Integrity Fix module. It’s also a good idea to put the apps in question on the Magisk denylist. I’ve been using this for years with good results and would not describe it as “a lot of things”.

Is that from installing an app or from install a malicious ROM?

A malicious app could modify the OS, but it would need root permissions. There are three ways that can happen:

• The app exploits a privilege escalation bug in the OS. This can happen even if you don’t have root access yourself.
• The app exploits a bug in a superuser permission manager (e.g. Magisk) to gain root privileges without prompting you.
• A previously legitimate app you’ve given root privileges to gets a malicious update (a supply chain attack).

A malicious ROM is certainly possible. Some random person’s LineageOS fork is slightly less trustworthy than its maintainer (due to supply chain attacks).

Privacy isn’t binary.

LineageOS without Gapps won’t send information to Google unless you install something that does. It won’t do a whole lot to prevent apps from collecting data like GrapheneOS does so it’s up to you to evaluate the privacy implications of anything you install.

A locked bootloader protects against two attack vectors: malware modifying the operating system at runtime, and an unauthorized person with physical access installing a malicious operating system while you’re not looking (an “evil maid” attack). The former is rare on Android. The latter is rare unless you’re a high-value target or dating an abusive hacker.

messengers started to E2EE

This is a big deal. I’ve had the archetypal non-technical user, my mother send me a PGP encrypted email. It will probably come as no surprise to anyone who has done so that this did not become our default.

Now the majority of our messaging and calling is via Signal. It’s effortless.

You’re not surprised. I’m not surprised. People who end up with this feature enabled without having fully understood it or intending to turn it on are surprised.

I’m not sure how much of this is people not thinking things through and how much is Meta being scumbags. There’s probably a little of both.

There was a time Facebook chat would share precise locations with every message by default. None of the people who sent me their location along with a message knew they were doing that when I told them.

a lot of them are falling for the privately educated ex city trader Farages nonsense that he’s a “man of the people”

This parallels Trump, but I think it’s mostly not that people are really fooled into believing these wealthy politicians are just like them. I think the attraction is more that the current system isn’t working for a lot of people and hasn’t been for a long time. Someone who offers to tear it down can attract a large following even if they don’t have a good proposal for what to replace it with.

It took a while for me to see that because I find the racist and nationalist beliefs of the likes of Trump, Farage, and the AFD so appalling it’s hard to see anything else.

I never said anything to that effect. The ancestor comment discussed running Signal for Android inside an Android emulator for account creation, after which it could be linked to Signal desktop.

Someone could presumably fork Signal desktop to allow the scenario you’re describing, but I’m not aware of any such efforts.

I imagine search of server backups would be pretty hard to do securely. Better management of locally stored media would be nice, but you can sort by size, export, and delete media from inside the settings.

If anyone is actually going to get that right in a mainstream product, it will probably be Signal.

A phone number that can receive SMS is required, but it doesn’t have to be associated with the device that’s running Signal last I checked.

It would be nice if the backups were split into time-indexed files so I could move the old parts to cheap external hard drives and only keep recent backups on my expensive phone storage.

I never set auto expiry and often search messages. Sometimes it’s because I want to find a specific fact or datum from two years ago; other times it’s just for a reminder of a memory. On occasion, if the history wasn’t there, people might remember something important differently.

There seem to be two main arguments put forth here:

1. F-Droid does not thoroughly audit the apps it distributes, so they might include bad behavior that is not initially obvious.
2. It is theoretically possible to provide a package to F-Droid that does not match the source code it claims to be based on.

To which I respond:

1. No app store thoroughly audits the apps they distribute. You must ultimately decide if you trust the developer enough to run their app, or audit the code and build it yourself.
2. This creates a theoretical opportunity for a developer or maintainer to upload a package that doesn’t match its purported source code, but it’s possible to check for this manually, and to automate that process. It’s likely anyone exploiting this would be caught and their reputation tarnished. It comes back to the first point: do you trust the developer or maintainer enough to run their app?

If you have average security needs, you probably don’t need to worry about this. If you have reason to believe someone well-resourced and dangerous wants to compromise your phone, you should probably be extremely selective about what apps you install and where you get them.

It is increasingly unrealistic to entirely prevent children from having unsupervised access to internet-connected devices from a young age, but attempts to make it impossible for anyone under 18 to access porn are equally unrealistic, and often far worse than the problem they purport to solve.

With good parenting, the possibility of accessing porn won’t harm most kids. It’s not just about keeping them away from it, but about teaching healthy and realistic attitudes toward sex.

I agree, and I think my solution in combination with some filter lists addresses that problem pretty well. Very few eight year olds will have the ability or desire to bypass restrictions like that to look at porn.

Kids can’t use computers, and that’s not good for the world. If teenagers figure out enough about how the computer works to get around the parental controls and watch porn, I consider that a net win.

I don’t actually care if teenagers sophisticated enough to do that see porn.

In a January blog post, it said age verification should take place on users’ devices, such as through their operating system, rather than on individual, age-restricted sites.

The details of this are potentially problematic, as they could preclude the use of open source browsers and operating systems.

It would be great to standardize an HTTP header that says the user is underage, which could be sent by any OS/browser combination that has suitable parental controls.

Instagram and Tiktok are usable in a web browser, though they do want you to make an account.

Terms like “safe” and “private” are not binary.

Are the contents of your Signal conversations on an iPhone private with regard to mass surveillance conducted by governments and ISPs? Probably. Apple uses security and privacy as marketing points, and there are a whole lot of people looking for vulnerabilities in its products who are incentivized to disclose them (possibly with a delay for patches). Signal itself takes steps to prevent data leaks to less secure parts of the OS and other apps.

Would your conversations remain private in the face of a targeted attack against your device by a nation state willing to spend a significant amount of time and money when you’re using Signal on an iPhone that’s presumably used for purposes other than secure conversations with a small set of people you know? Almost certainly not.

Tried this; continued to see no ads for anything at all. Am I doing it wrong?