Re:Technology preview: Sealed sender for Signal
by ikfmpwdsoz on Monday October 29, 2018 @08:58PM
(#18333142)
But... Wire has both! With generics, you introduce complexity into the language that everyone has to understand, but that's obviously not true when it comes to having accounts that aren't tied to phone numbers!
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Technology preview: Sealed sender for Signal
by tptacek on Monday October 29, 2018 @09:06PM
(#18333175)
Wire is a perfectly legitimate option. I'd only ask that you keep in mind that there are other privacy tradeoffs involved in using it.
Re:Technology preview: Sealed sender for Signal
by tuxxy on Monday October 29, 2018 @09:33PM
(#18333339)
Do you mind elaborating on those, or providing a link with more details?
Re:Technology preview: Sealed sender for Signal
by tptacek on Monday October 29, 2018 @09:51PM
(#18333416)
Make a list of privacy-preserving things Signal does: the elaborate privacy scheme for user profiles, the special privacy proxy for GIF sharing, the envelope certificate trick they just introduced, &c.
Then go see what other messengers do to provide the same UX.
Depending on the messenger you pick, you will likely not have to give up your phone number, but you will leave the messenger operator with a log of everyone you've communicated with.
Re:Technology preview: Sealed sender for Signal
by hardwarescope on Tuesday October 30, 2018 @06:38AM
(#18335270)
If I remember correctly, as a consequence, they store all of your unencrypted contacts on their server, or at least all of your unencrypted Wire contacts on their server. Unlike Signal, which stores nothing about you other than the date your account was created. That may be the "complexity" you're not understanding, in this case.