44
submitted 1 month ago by chappedafloat@lemmy.wtf to c/privacy@lemmy.ml

Convincing people to use apps such as Signal is hard work and most can't be convinced. But with those you manage to convince, do you feel happy to talk to them on Signal?

The problem is these people use Signal on Android/IOS which can't be trusted and IOS has recently been in the news for having a backdoor. And it has also been revealed that american feds are able to read everyone's push notifications and they do this as mass surveillance.

So not only do you have to convince people to use Signal which is an incredibly difficult challenge. You also have to convince them to go into settings to disable message and sender being included in the push notifications. And then there's the big question is the Android and IOS operating systems are doing mass surveillance anyway. And many people find it taking a lot of effort to type on the phone so they install Signal on the computer which is a mac or Windows OS.

So I don't think I feel comfortable sending messages in Signal but it's better than Whatsapp.

These were some thoughts to get the discussion started and set the context.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] unskilled5117@feddit.org 39 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You are just spreading misinformation! Cite your sources!

There is a strategy used, which allows the government to find out who an account belongs to. They ask the push providers (Apple/Google) for data on the push token from e.g. a messaging app. This way they associate the account from an app with an identity.

Nothing there about message content. It is still safely E2EE.

~~I don’t know how it works in your country, but in mine, phone numbers are already associated with identities, so nothing gained as the gov can just ask signal for the phone number of an account, instead of having to ask signal and the push provider to get the identity.~~ (Edit: apparently it’s hashed, so there seems to be a use for this.) Signal isn’t about Anonymity but Privacy. There is a difference.

If you have another vulnerability cite it!

[-] refalo@programming.dev 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

They ask the push providers (Apple/Google) for data on the push token from e.g. a messaging app. This way they associate the account from an app with an identity.

Very overlooked point. You can find privacy guides online but very few even suggest that FCM etc. might have privacy issues, let alone explain exactly why. It seems this has already been used by law enforcement in the past: https://www.wired.com/story/apple-google-push-notification-surveillance/

The Molly-FOSS fork of Signal (which aims to be even more secure/private) actually supports self-hosted push notifications using UnifiedPush.

I also found this comment:

As far as I know, FCM on Android can be configured to use a notification payload (which is piped through Google's servers). But for a release app this is discouraged, especially if you are privacy conscious. An app would normally use FCM to receive a trigger and look up the received message from the app's own backend. See here for more information.

[-] andylicious1337@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

good points altough the number is note saved. the hash of the phonenumber is hashed so Signal could not hand out your number, just the hash.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 30 points 1 month ago

The way I see it, any step is better than no step at all.

[-] otter@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

Yep, none of us got to where we are all at once. We learned about things over time, and made changes over time.

It's a process just like any other type of personal development/ habit building

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] c0smokram3r@midwest.social 18 points 1 month ago

Took years to get all the ppl I care about on signal & now the effort was definitely worth the reward.

Why don’t you feel comfortable on signal? Honestly it’s worked out for the best in my use case bc I have ppl that use android, iOS, windows, Linux & macOS, so it’s great to not have to deal with shit media quality or messages not going through bc of all the different operating systems. It’s E2EE so I’m not too worried about mass surveillance within my signal groups.

Also, iOS back door? I must have missed that. Haven’t seen any news about that.

[-] Lemongrab@lemmy.one 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
[-] unskilled5117@feddit.org 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That is an iMessage exploit, nothing to do with push notifications. He might be referring to this, which allows associating an account with an identity, but it’s not what he is claiming (content decryption) either. So as long as no sources are provided he is just spreading FUD

[-] Lemongrab@lemmy.one 3 points 1 month ago

I was referring to the OP's comment on "iOS having a backdoor". I am not saying I agree with OP, just was trying to see if there was something like a backdoor.

[-] unskilled5117@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago

Oh sorry about that! Somehow missed that. Still weird by OP to claim systems are insecure just because vulnerabilities are discovered. That‘s the case for every system out there. Vulnerabilities are discovered and fixed. And mobile operating systems typically have stricter security features and permission management than Desktop OS.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Signal is not my tool of choice, so I'll answer from a more general perspective:

Having multiple friends and social groups on an e2ee chat system for the past few years feels great. Knowing that our words aren't being recorded and exploited by half a dozen companies, we no longer feel the need to self-censor. The depth and value of our online conversations have grown noticeably.

Yes, there is more work to do, both at the endpoints and in the protocols. No, not all of us have flipped all the switches to maximize our privacy yet. That's okay. Migrating is a gradual process. We do it together, helping each other along the way, rather than trying to force it all at once. Every step an improvement.

[-] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

This is exactly my take. It basically holds for Signal too.

The question of self-censorship is too often overlooked IMO. The knowledge that nobody is reading your messages except their intended recipients is empowering and liberating. No one is filling a database with information about you and your friends, because they can't. You can say exactly what you would say at the dinner table and not think twice about it.

In a police state with mass surveillance (we all know the big examples) you don't have this privilege. Whether or not you think about it consciously, you are constantly monitoring and policing what you say - and therefore ultimately, to some extent, what you think.

I've been in a couple of those places recently. I can tell you that just the banal act of using Signal there (sometimes over VPN) felt almost exhilarating, like jumping the prison walls.

In historical terms, free speech is a vanishing rare thing. It absolutely is not the norm and it bothers me that so many people in the West don't seem to know this. We should not take it for granted.

[-] kbal@fedia.io 9 points 1 month ago

Yeah, Signal is good enough. If people use shitty operating systems like iOS or Google's version of Android that's another problem and not really one that it's my job to care about that much. What matters is the network effect and every user who moves moves from Whatsapp to Signal is one more person who gains the freedom to easily improve their digital lives further if they someday choose to do so without it costing them the ability to chat with all their friends.

[-] EngineerGaming@feddit.nl 6 points 1 month ago

The problem I have with Signal is that it itself pushes people onto the "shitty operating systems". It does not allow registering from desktop, at least officially. There are workarounds, but they're cumbersome (especially for a non-technical person, whom Signal is supposed to appeal to), and the official client outright tells you go to use a phone first. And even then, apparently the desktop client is not even full-featured, and not the priority.

I know there are degoogled OSes (running Graphene myself), but you'd need to get lucky or choose a phone with this in mind, while a random given laptop is likely to be able to run Linux.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] davel@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago

“Feel,” “happy,” “comfortable”… Privacy doesn’t care about your feelings.

And it has also been revealed that american feds are able to read everyone’s push notifications and they do this as mass surveillance.

Speaking of the feds, it was they who funded the creation of Signal, which is one of the reasons it ought not be trusted.

[-] autonomoususer@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

They funded encryption too. Why don't you stop using that?

[-] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Wait until they find out who started the internet. Or who runs GPS satellites

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

History shows that you shouldn’t automatically trust encryption technologies from the US government.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago

Signal is fine for almost everyone unless you're truly doing dangerous work in a truly oppressive state.

I'm so tired of everyone telling others not to use signal because it uses phone numbers. Everyone in here acting like they're mr. Robot or something.

Anonymity is not the same as privacy. Privacy is good enough for me

[-] autonomoususer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Your country doesn't block Signal sign up SMS to its numbers.

[-] Kintarian@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

I figure it's best to assume that there is no privacy on the internet.

I've been in IT to close to 40 years and I don't say anything online that I wouldn't say in public.

[-] kbal@fedia.io 12 points 1 month ago

Be paranoid in your estimation of how much privacy you have, but diligent in your efforts to get more of it for everyone.

[-] autonomoususer@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Will people read this and stop using the internet or stop caring about privacy?

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] OlPatchy2Eyes@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 month ago

Is there any reason to believe the message and sender can be read from the data sent to the push service? From my understanding, that should still be encrypted.

[-] merde@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

indeed they are ☞ President of @signalapp : https://mastodon.world/@Mer__edith/111563865413484025

PSA: We've received questions about push notifications. First: push notifications for Signal NEVER contain sensitive unencrypted data & do not reveal the contents of any Signal messages or calls–not to Apple, not to Google, not to anyone but you & the people you're talking to.

In Signal, push notifications simply act as a ping that tells the app to wake up. They don't reveal who sent the message or who is calling (not to Apple, Google, or anyone). Notifications are processed entirely on your device. This is different from many other apps.

What's the background here? Currently, in order to enable push notifications on the dominant mobile operating systems (iOS and Android) those building and maintaining apps like Signal need to use services offered by Apple and Google.

Apple simply doesn’t let you do it another way. And Google, well you could (and we've tried), but the cost to battery life is devastating for performance, rendering this a false option if you want to build a usable, practical, dependable app for people all over the world.*

So, while we do not love Big Tech choke points and the control that a handful of companies wield over the tech ecosystem, we do everything we can to ensure that in spite of this dynamic, if you use Signal your privacy is preserved.

*(Note, if you are among the small number of people that run alt Android-based operating systems that don't include Google libraries, we implement the battery-destroying push option, and hope you have ways to navigate.)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] autonomoususer@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Got to start somewhere.

[-] tired_n_bored@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

I use Molly, a fork of Signal in order to use nfty push notifications

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] 211@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 month ago

I don't know how the Play Store version does push notifications, but Molly, and I think the apk from their site, work just fine on degoogled phones without Google services.

I don't remember what name it has, but missing it breaks push notifications on most "normal" apps. Many FLOSS ones are coded to have their own methods that don't transmit data to Google, and it appears at least some versions of Signal do too.

My threat model doesn't include state level actors taking an active interest in me, so for my purposes Signal would be secure enough, if only I got people to adopt even it.

[-] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

This is the ideal scenario as I see it, in order of importance:

  1. industry-standard E2E encryption using open-source software on the client (privacy)
  2. distributed server network controlled by many entities (resilience)
  3. open-source, open-standards, interoperable software on both client and server (user autonomy)

As I understand it, the goldilocks solution is therefore the Matrix stack. BUT! It's hard to set up and nobody uses it!

The best real-world option, with feasible UX and an existing critical mass of users, is therefore Signal. It only fully meets the first criterion, yes. But personally I give it a bit of credit for the second too, in that it belongs to a non-profit foundation with multiple stakeholders, somewhat like Wikimedia. Signal will do while we're waiting for a proper email-like open standard for secure messaging.

[-] fractal_flowers@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

the Matrix stack. BUT! It’s hard to set up and nobody uses it!

Is it really that hard? For me it was just downloading an app and creating an account--easier than setting up Facebook Messenger. I think it doesn't yet have the network that Messenger/Signal/Whatsapp have, which makes it harder to use with others, but setting up has been easy in my experience.

[-] Schlemmy@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago

They mean setting up your own server.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] toastal@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

There are several open protocols that meet your criteria that aren’t Matrix (with most of them using double-ratchet encryption similar to if not exactly like Signal). Due to server costs (Matrix eats a lot of RAM & storage), medium-sized entities usually bow out so the Matrix network largely consist of a few 1–10 user servers & massive centralization around Matrix.org & the hosted servers they provide. Since almost all the messages get synced to the Matrix.org server if just one Matrix.org user is in your room or whatever, all metadata will be synced to the mothership in Matrix.org that was originally funded by Israeli intelligence.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] kindenough@kbin.earth 2 points 1 month ago

Good enough to donate once in a while. There are just a few people I want to communicate with and true, they installed Signal for me.

[-] Kualk@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Signal runs a service. Even if its source code is open source there’s no guarantee that that’s the code running on the server.

I don’t know the protocol, but I am concerned of man in the middle and how safe it is from man in the middle. In this case signal servers must be considered to be man in the middle.

The only system to trust is peer to peer with proven track record of sending encrypted data over public channels.

That’s PGP and Delta Chat utilizing PGP.

[-] autonomoususer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Finally, someone who knows the difference between software and a service.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
44 points (74.4% liked)

Privacy

32008 readers
980 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS