Nowadays, a majority of apps require you to sign up with your email or even worse your phone number. If you have a phone number attached to your name, meaning you went to a cell service/phone provider, and you gave them your ID, then no matter what app you use, no matter how private it says it is, it is not private. There is NO exception to this. Your identity is instantly tied to that account.

Signal is not private. I recommend Simplex or another peer to peer onion messaging app. They don’t require email or phone number. So as long as you protect your IP you are anonymous

  • dysprosium@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Alright I think I know what you mean, but I’m still not sure we’re actually on the same page regarding encryption.

    If a company is forced to do whatever ths government commands it to do, that’s only valid within certain constraints.

    For example, the company cannot be forced to grow wings snd fly to thr heavens. That’s physically impossible.

    Similarly, it also cannot provide the decrypted messages of its users because it (like Signal) does not have the KEYS that are absolutely 100% necessary for decrypting the encrypted messages of its users. So, again, it’s physically impossible to hand over either the keys or the decrypted messages.

    However, there is one remedy that Signal CAN do, if somehow forced. That’s changing the Signal program. It certainly can push an update that sends Signal the keys for decryption.

    However, at that point, the source code at github doesn’t match the compiled binary of the program anymore, and very good chance people would notice, and thereby people would lose trust in Signal.

    I’m not sure about the examples you gave about the government being successful in obtaining user details of a company. Were those details encrypted as well? Was the source code publically available? Was the program popular?

    • unexpected@forum.guncadindex.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Just the fact that signal can, and we can assume, does share all the other data outside of the actual message content is a big deal.

      You’re just not going to go to the extra effort of requiring a phone number and storing that information if your business model isn’t dependent on selling that information to parties who would want it. That takes a lot more effort than just giving out username/password pairs.

      • dysprosium@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        No there is good reason for requiring a phone number, it’s to reduce spam accounts.

        Of course they can sell your phone number but that’s not the only good reason for requiring one.

        • unexpected@forum.guncadindex.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          You appear to be saying that like it is a bad thing, rather than a good thing. Easily making multiple accounts is a crucial part of anonymity and privacy.

          • dysprosium@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 hours ago

            Dude ever heard of a double edged sword? As I already stated, requiring a phone number HAS downsides but it also has upsides.

            There will be more spam and scam accounts to worry about on Signal than on SimpleX, I can almost guarantee it! At least if simpleX gets more popular of course.
            But yes, no phone number does indeed increase anonymity, but not so much privacy.

            I view Signal as the bridge between absolute non-techies and me, so they can at least navigate and use the app, while I am not sacrificing too much privacy.

            And I use simpleX with other people who are more tech inclined.

            Pick your poison, that’s the bottom line.