this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2025
54 points (65.3% liked)

Privacy

41568 readers
853 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

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As Signal get your phone number. Can we considerate this application as private ? What's your thoughts about it ? I'm also using SimpleX, ElementX, Threema, but not much people using it...

Cheers

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sifar@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

With the phone number, no; and since there's no Signal usage without a phone number, well…. Also, I think somewhere on their website (or some place) they talked about burner phones as if it's a universal phenomena.

Signal has felt "out of place" to me. Odd. It doesn't fit in, doesn't make sense if I think a bit farther about it.

I hope something decentralised comes out of Signal protocol minus the need for a phone number.

[–] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago

SimpleX uses Signal tech AFAIK but without requiring phone number or email address.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You are talking about session. Session is a signal fork, and you don't need phone number. But there is some concerns about its security as, in order to properly work, it removed some signal features, I'm not qualified enough to understand if it's truly a security risk or not. But the option to use it is there.

[–] deprecateddino@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago

I used it for a couple years, but came back to signal because I had so many issues with media sharing.

[–] ganymede@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Imo signal protocol is mostly fairly robust, signal service itself is about the best middle ground available to get the general public off bigtech slop.

It compares favorably against whatsapp while providing comparable UX/onboarding/rendevous, which is pretty essential to get your non-tech friends/family out of meta's evil clutches.

Just the sheer number of people signal's helped to protect from eg. meta, you gotta give praise for that.

It is lacking in core features which would bring it to the next level of privacy, anonymity and safety. But it's not exactly trivial to provide ALL of the above in one package while retaining accessibility to the general public.

Personally, I'd be happier if signal began to offer these additional features as options, maybe behind a consent checkbox like "yes i know what i'm doing (if someone asked you to enable this mode & you're only doing it because they told you to, STOP NOW -> ok -> NO REALLY, STOP NOW IF YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO ENABLE THIS BY ANYONE -> ok -> alright, here ya go...)".

[–] irotsoma@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 1 day ago

Secure and private or anonymous are very different things and nearly impossible to do both at the same time and still make it user friendly. Signal is secure, not fully private or anonymous.

[–] Core_of_Arden@lemmy.ml 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GreenShimada@lemmy.world 100 points 2 days ago (3 children)

This is kind of useless fear-mongering suited to no one's threat model.

Are messages truly E2EE and they don't share meta data? Yes? Then you're fine. It needs a phone number for registration? OK, well buy a burner SIM card (you of course have several, right?) to register it if you're that worried. Because if you're already at a level where you're THAT concerned about your phone number pinging for using a widely popular messaging app, then you have lost the game by even having a phone or sending messages to other humans who are the weakest link in the security chain anyway.

Considering that the Feds tried to make some government-compliant front end for Signal for idiot Hegseth to use to talk about national security stuff with the Vice President, I'd say that it's probably fine for you to buy weed or whatever.

[–] msherburn33@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

OK, well buy a burner SIM card

Illegal in many countries. SIM cards are attached to your real world identity.

[–] protogen420@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 1 day ago

And we shouldn't depend on such archaic highly centralized technology like phone numbers from techinical perspective either, it is only like this because it is deeply entrenched and a very easily a suprisingly reliable form of identification and deanomization

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 23 points 1 day ago

I'll add that if someone knowing your phone number is an actual threat to your safety, you should already know better about using something more anonymous.

Privacy ≠ anonymity

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] paris@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 1 day ago (7 children)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] notarobot@lemmy.zip 68 points 2 days ago (13 children)

Private and anonymous are different things. While anonymity does increase privacy, it is not a strict requirement. So it this private, but not as private as possible.

The best private messenger IMO is simplex, but it not production ready yet

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 8 points 1 day ago

Signal is a stop gap measure on the way to simplex

It did its job of providing privacy of content but meta data a d KYCd phones was a honeypot. Glowies got their relationship heat maps which is really all they wanted.

Once they need content, they will brick your end point with million zero day back doors caked onto everything.

Pegasus cellebrite etc is now used against normal targets.

5 years ago you would have to be a national security concern for such royal treament

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›