The head of the Signal app has criticized plans in the EU to allow messengers to have backdoors to enable automatic searches for criminal content. Signal is considered one of the most secure messengers.
Even if signal was insecure and had no privacy (which it it secure and private), wouldn’t you still prefer people needed a warrant or some form of document that had to go through the court before your messages could be read?
Obviously not. Think about supply and demand. Because a toxic product is being hailed as secure there isn’t enough demand for an actually anonymous and private messenger. So calling signal “secure” is just helping state security.
If you actually want to message about revolutionary (illegal, “terrorist”) activity and don’t want to be traced immediately by an agent of state security or an informant, Signal offers nothing (unless you use criminal activity like identity theft). In such a case a warrant will obviously be granted and they can immediately find and arrest you.
Can you see the logic how Signal isn’t secure at all for an actual dissident?
Supply and demand: There are seemingly new messenging services that pop up every day, so I’m not sure why you think Signal existing is stopping progress. It isn’t.
Security: For 99.9% of people, the security and privacy granted through using Signal is amazing and it is worthy of being called secure. I mean it’s secure enough for government officials to trust using. With how Signal is currently, an official data request from the government for Signal data returns pretty much nothing except the phone number used (and that they have signed up for signal ofc), which is great.
I think ‘revolutionaries’ (protestors) are already using Signal. I haven’t heard of any cases where something has gone wrong for them, but again, there’s no way for your messages to be read unless they get access to your phone (if you are smart you will make sure your messages auto delete and that you lockdown or shutdown your phone incase of arrest).
A regular captain of industry for whom the automatic searchers of his zero-privacy messenger is one step too far lol
Even if signal was insecure and had no privacy (which it it secure and private), wouldn’t you still prefer people needed a warrant or some form of document that had to go through the court before your messages could be read?
Obviously not. Think about supply and demand. Because a toxic product is being hailed as secure there isn’t enough demand for an actually anonymous and private messenger. So calling signal “secure” is just helping state security.
If you actually want to message about revolutionary (illegal, “terrorist”) activity and don’t want to be traced immediately by an agent of state security or an informant, Signal offers nothing (unless you use criminal activity like identity theft). In such a case a warrant will obviously be granted and they can immediately find and arrest you.
Can you see the logic how Signal isn’t secure at all for an actual dissident?
Supply and demand: There are seemingly new messenging services that pop up every day, so I’m not sure why you think Signal existing is stopping progress. It isn’t.
Security: For 99.9% of people, the security and privacy granted through using Signal is amazing and it is worthy of being called secure. I mean it’s secure enough for government officials to trust using. With how Signal is currently, an official data request from the government for Signal data returns pretty much nothing except the phone number used (and that they have signed up for signal ofc), which is great.
I think ‘revolutionaries’ (protestors) are already using Signal. I haven’t heard of any cases where something has gone wrong for them, but again, there’s no way for your messages to be read unless they get access to your phone (if you are smart you will make sure your messages auto delete and that you lockdown or shutdown your phone incase of arrest).
I can’t see how Signal isn’t safe for anyone.