Re:Wrong signal
by acqq on Monday November 28, 2016 @08:34AM
(#13055257)
> appears to be patently false
Even if it is claimed that the metadata miraculously wasn't collected (provided it really wasn't collected under some other publicly invisible arrangement, which is still technically doable) that doesn't prove it is impossible to do so, especially as the result of another secret request.
I don't see the "FUD" in the article. It seems very popular using labels instead of talking about issues, but please, please don't.
The phone number problems were known since long, and the Signal's explanation "it's easier for the average user this way" doesn't explain why other alternatives aren't even allowed.
It's obvious there are certain goals behind Signal, and those with different goals have to organize themselves. What they surely can't do is claiming to have right to decide what Signal (as a company) does. If those who have clear needs want to introduce their own solution, they surely have to demonstrate what the Signal doesn't solve, and that's surely not FUD.
Even if it is claimed that the metadata miraculously wasn't collected (provided it really wasn't collected under some other publicly invisible arrangement, which is still technically doable) that doesn't prove it is impossible to do so, especially as the result of another secret request.
I don't see the "FUD" in the article. It seems very popular using labels instead of talking about issues, but please, please don't.
The phone number problems were known since long, and the Signal's explanation "it's easier for the average user this way" doesn't explain why other alternatives aren't even allowed.
It's obvious there are certain goals behind Signal, and those with different goals have to organize themselves. What they surely can't do is claiming to have right to decide what Signal (as a company) does. If those who have clear needs want to introduce their own solution, they surely have to demonstrate what the Signal doesn't solve, and that's surely not FUD.