Link to article from main Lemmy❤️ developer about Signal privacy. Mostly fair points. I kinda distrust so centralized services but basically we have no other options (Matrix is buggy in many aspects). What can you say about this article?

  • Melpomene
    63•1 year ago

    This is posted relatively often, and every time it is posted I feel compelled to note that said dev has not articulated any real reason to consider Signal insecure beyond an implicit conspiracy theory with no real meat to it.

    “Signal’s use luckily never caught on by the general public of China (or the Hong Kong Administrative region), whose government prefers autonomy, rather than letting US tech control its communication platforms, as most of the rest of the world naively allows.”

    When you’re holding up China as an example for the world to follow for privacy, I have a hard time taking ANYTHING else you’re claiming seriously.

    • 133arc585
      25•1 year ago

      “Signal’s use luckily never caught on by the general public of China (or the Hong Kong Administrative region), whose government prefers autonomy, rather than letting US tech control its communication platforms, as most of the rest of the world naively allows.”

      When you’re holding up China as an example for the world to follow for privacy

      I interpret that quote to say that China doesn’t trust US tech like the rest of the world does. It’s not saying that China has more privacy and the rest of the world should follow, it’s saying that the rest of the world also shouldn’t be so naively trustworthy of US tech either.

      • Matricaria
        4•1 year ago

        I don’t think the problem is that China doesn’t trust the US but rather that China wants to spy on their citizens.

        • 133arc585
          3•1 year ago

          Ok then you’re wilfully misreading the quote. That quote is not cryptic in the least. I have no clue why the parent comment is framing it as “holding up China as an example for the world to follow for privacy”. It doesn’t follow from the quote in any way.

      • Melpomene
        1•1 year ago

        And they offer no reasonable basis for distrusting Signal, the tech that they attempt to vilify. Given said dev’s past comments, it is reasonable to infer that the reference to China presents them as an example to be followed here.

        • 133arc585
          2•1 year ago

          Ok, two things are happening here.

          they offer no reasonable basis for distrusting Signal, the tech that they attempt to vilify.

          One, is that they did provide what they considered reasonable basis for distrusting Signal. Given that they thought Signal should not be trusted, the quote you posted is pretty obviously to be interpreted as: thankfully China hasn’t naively adopted a compromised communications platform with a USA intelligence backdoor. Now, if you want to say their basis for distrust is not reasonable, or is false, that’s completely fine. But in doing so it doesn’t change the author’s intent behind the quote which you posted.

          Given said dev’s past comments, it is reasonable to infer that the reference to China presents them as an example to be followed here.

          Two, is that it should be pretty clear they are saying China should be followed here in a very specific and explicit way: they aren’t saying follow China in every way under the sun. It’s very obvious from context and from what is explicitly said that they mean: China’s distrust and refusal to adopt (what they consider) a platform with USA backdoors should be followed. And I think that’s an entirely reasonable statement to make. No one should naively adopt compromised communications platforms.

          There is no honest reading of the quote (especially given the rest of the context of the essay leading up to the quote) that could lead someone to conclude that this particular essay is (1) advocating for and supporting China spying on its citizens and (2) advocating for other countries following China in spying on citizens. It’s pretty obvious the only honest reading of this is: “I believe Signal has USA backdoors. Given that, I’m glad China hasn’t adopted its use heavily. I also think other countries should follow China in not naively accepting such technologies”.

          Again, you can disagree with the foundational reasons for distrust, and that could be very useful. But painting the essay and quote the way you (and others here) are is just intellectually dishonest. Disagree with what is actually said, not with what you imagine (or wish) was said.

          • Melpomene
            -2•1 year ago

            Key of the previous comment is reasonable. One might as well say that Trump provided a reasonable basis for denying the election results, or that climate deniers are being reasonable in denying the wealth of evidence supporting the idea of man-made climate change. If we’re willing to reject abjectly idiotic claims in one case, we should be rejecting them across the board whether we like the politics of the person in question or not.

            TL;DR: The author is engaging in agenda driven conspiracy porn which they know or should know is false. As such, it is reasonable to assume that they’re either willfully ignorant or acting in bad faith.

    • ᗪᗩᗰᑎ
      18•1 year ago

      100% agree. I appreciate the guys work on lemmy and the jerboa (the android app) but he’s got some weird ideas.

    • @Tangent5280
      18•1 year ago

      Yeah that china comparison majorly derails this argument. When I read it earlier I just glossed over that but now it stands out like a sore thumb.

      I don’t know what to think about signal anymore. I suppose as laymen we are pretty much non-players as far as the interest of government groups go, but still I suppose I need to learn a lot more about privacy best practices and threat assessment because some of the article was just difficult.

      • Melpomene
        13•1 year ago

        TLDR, the thought is that the USA is spying on users of Signal because some early funding came from the US government. But the evidence suggests not; indeed, governments worldwide are targeting Signal et al because they don’t LIKE that they can’t just demand access from providers.

        • slazer2au
          4•1 year ago

          Also in the same vain didn’t the US armed forces (possibly the Navy) develop TOR?

      • @[email protected]
        8•1 year ago

        I dunno if Moxie Marlinspike is still behind Signal, but I’ve met the dude. He eats, sleeps, and shits privacy.