I’m actually not sure what it is fb offers that people stay on it for. I find that you don’t need it to connect with actual friends. Even just making a Slack for close friends is a far better experience. It’s not great for finding news, it’s terrible for trying to have any sort of discussion. I genuinely don’t understand what purpose it serves.
In the West, we’re told our system is superior even if it fails to deliver any tangible progress, because we have free speech and privacy. Yet, while people in China flourish as our standard of living continues to decline, turns out the whole free speech argument was hollow all along. Irony, anyone?
Meanwhile, United Nations Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese:
“What is happening in Germany is not normal.”
“The more I hear, the more I’m shocked. This is a country that has lectured the Global South on fundamental freedoms—freedom of assembly, freedom of opinion.”
“What are Germans waiting for to say: enough!”
a glitch where we had our ad team write the marketing material and setup a call center that would process these policies on the backend and training the backend call center staff to process these policies and built out backend systems to store and process said policies and a mechanism to push ads to the car. Besides all the a total glitch
Surprised nobody mentioned scuttlebutt yet https://scuttlebutt.nz/
If you’re arguing that it is possible to build a system that uses a server for routing while keeping clients anonymous, then that is the case. However, what we’re talking about here is whether a malicious actor would be able to intentionally harvest metadata about the users. And my point was that since only the people operating the Signal server know what it’s actually doing, it becomes a trust based system. You have to trust that Whisper Systems is a good actor and they’re not harvesting your information.
You sign up to use Signal using your phone number which is a personally identifying piece of information. Signal clients send messages to the server that routes the messages to their destination. It is not a p2p system where clients talk directly to each other. Therefore, the server must know both the sending and receiving accounts for the messages it routes, and it has the phone numbers associated with this accounts. All these things together make it trivial for the server to know which phone numbers talk to each other.
Sure, every platform has its own set of problems, and it’s fine to make an informed decision that you’re willing to accept the deficiencies of a particular platform you’re using. The issue I have is with people pretending that Signal doesn’t have the problems that it has as we can see happening in this very thread.
The only one making claims without evidence here is you bud. What I said is that Signal requires users to submit their phone numbers, and that only people operating the server know how that information is handled. These are objective facts.
You made a baseless claim that Signal does not retain the phone numbers or use them to build graphs of users. This is a claim that cannot be proven, and you keep repeating it as fact. Either you are clueless or you’re intentionally spreading misinformation.
Exactly, what we call this information is entirely besides the point. What matters is that it’s being collected, and nobody outside the people operating the server knows how this information is used. If somebody says they trust Whisper and make a conscious choice to share that information with the company that’s perfectly fine. However, telling people that the problem doesn’t exist is dangerously dishonest.
I don’t have to be. Lots of people, public and private, who are far more knowledgeable than me, already have.
Literally nobody outside Whisper has access to the server, and therefore nobody outside Whisper knows what the server does. The fact that you don’t understand this basic fact is frankly embarrassing.
You’re assuming they’re doing something nefarious but you have zero evidence to back that up.
As I’ve repeatedly explained to you in this thread, security cannot be based on trust. If data is available to an attacker then the system has to be assumed to be compromised. If you understood first thing about security you’d understand that this is a fundamental point.
The fact that you just keep regurgitating back what I write to you shows that you have all the intellectual capacity of a chat bot.
It’s not. And I’m tired of repeating myself.
Yes, you continue repeating a demonstrably false statement. A very astute observation on your part.
Once again, no one has access to the content of the messages. Ergo, there is no metadata. Maybe spend a bit of time actually learning about the subject instead of trolling here.
Once again, nobody is talking about content of the messages. What’s being said is that the identifying information about people sending and receiving messages is available to the server routing them. The fact that you continue ignoring this basic fact clearly shows that you’re the one who’s doing the trolling.
Your phone number is an identifying piece of information about the person who is sending and receiving messages. That’s what metadata is. The content of the message is the data, the identifying information is metadata. Maybe spend a bit of time actually learning about the subject instead of trolling here.
- •
- wire.com
- •
- 10M
- •
thank you for gracing us with an example of how a thirteen year old understands the world