I’m not aware of any messenger that is more secure. In fact, almost every other encrypted messenger uses the same algorithm.
It might not by the most anonymous messenger (as there is Session and Threema for example that don’t require a phone number) but it’s probably the most secure.
Well, that’s true but it barely affects anonymity.
All that can be determined from that is that the number in question has a signal account, and how recently the account has checked for messages. It doesn’t tie messages or contacts to the number. (Any more)
Actually, it does not. Signal cannot build social graphs based on communications. This is one of many unique inventions that Signal implemented and what makes Signal so great.
WhatsApp does use that same Signal protocol for its messages but that’s very poor writing considering all the tracked metadata arguably makes it just as insecure as Telegram.
I might be missing the point, but isn’t this a decently dumbed-down description of the difference between services that are end-to-end encrypted and those that are not?
That’s a very bold claim the author of the article makes.
I’m not aware of any messenger that is more secure. In fact, almost every other encrypted messenger uses the same algorithm.
It might not by the most anonymous messenger (as there is Session and Threema for example that don’t require a phone number) but it’s probably the most secure.
Signal no longer requires a phone number either.
It does. You can share your username with others. But for registering it still requires one and your account is still linked to one.
Well, that’s true but it barely affects anonymity.
All that can be determined from that is that the number in question has a signal account, and how recently the account has checked for messages. It doesn’t tie messages or contacts to the number. (Any more)
deleted by creator
Actually, it does not. Signal cannot build social graphs based on communications. This is one of many unique inventions that Signal implemented and what makes Signal so great.
Well even then it’s not the most secure but one of the most secure, no?
Here is where I gave up reading lol
WhatsApp does use that same Signal protocol for its messages but that’s very poor writing considering all the tracked metadata arguably makes it just as insecure as Telegram.
Ownership by Facebook renders WhatsApp inherently untrustworthy.
deleted by creator
Or possibly a user’s phone who was a party to the Whatsapp conversation was collected as evidence and unlocked by the user.
deleted by creator
I might be missing the point, but isn’t this a decently dumbed-down description of the difference between services that are end-to-end encrypted and those that are not?
Are you saying that is wrong?
‘Truly secure’ and ‘whatsapp’ don’t belong in the same sentence, I don’t know what else to say but that it is laughable.
Ah, gotcha. I thought your gripe was with the encrypted vs end to end encrypted bit.