Yes, it's not strong proof, but it should be taken into account when comparing the goals and motivations of organizations developing various other communicators.
The organization behind your communicator app could be in the business of gathering data about you and selling it in various forms (Facebook, Google), in the business of selling hardware and add-on software services (Apple), or in the non-business of trying to provide you with private communications.
The Signal app itself is opensource as well various pieces of the tech stack. You can audit yourself what is being sent and how their protocols work. The protocol itself has won awards due to its security and elegance.
There is a lot of good things to say about Signal and you can easily find it all. They have made some annoying or less than ideal features that are opt-out instead of opt-in but they're not sacrificing privacy for them.
Your phone is running an APK, which is a bunch of signed code. You don't have the keys to sign such an APK yourself, but you can get tools that will tell you exactly what's inside the one you have.
I believe the Java source in GitHub is designed to be capable of a reproducible build, where you get the exact same Java binaries out as Signal's own builders did and thus you can compare that to confirm the Java code in your APK matches a specific Git checkout.
The media files (e.g. images, labels) are just straight binary copies so that's easy enough.
However there is native code to make stuff like video calls work, and when I last paid attention there was no reproducible build for that component. So you could imagine that somehow the native video call code is actually a secret backdoor or something.
Still, years ahead anything else that actually have users. The server is mostly 100% closed source. There's one open source that you can host, but it's widely believed to not be even close to the one they use.
I think only matrix is fully open and p2p.
> should be taken into account when comparing the goals and motivations of organizations developing various other communicators.
Business or funding models can change for both for- and non-profit organizations. Especially as people move to options that are believed to have better user-privacy, the idea that they do not sell/monetize collected user data today does not indicate what they will do tomorrow.
Unless users have strong evidence that companies are not collecting and/or monetizing this information (which as the OP pointed out, there is for Signal as found in a subpoena), the "billboard" approach towards promising user privacy via marketing and PR is a shallow one at best for non-profits as well as for-profit companies.
That said, at the end of the day you have to trust SOMEONE if you want to use digital communications. And there's certainly a difference between facebook and GPG email encryption.
It's just a matter of balancing convenience and privacy for your personal use case.
I'm asking specifically because I remember Private Internet Access, a VPN provider, also being tested in court in the past [1], and because of this I've chosen to trust them despite them falling under Five Eyes jurisdiction.
[1] https://torrentfreak.com/private-internet-access-no-logging-...
https://signal.org/bigbrother/eastern-virginia-grand-jury/
In short, the ACLU helped them to lift the gag order, and the blog itself shows the legal documents. The documents show exactly the data returned (Account creation and last access in Unix millis). Only the phone numbers are still redacted.
I didn't try other servers/cities to get more information.
My default choice is Sweden since they have the most lax copyright laws in the world, so subpoenaing any Swedish server gonna be tough.
They also offered me unavoidable discount.
This is a fairly common practice and my understanding is that every major and most minor VPN services offer this.
Mullvad also does this. Here's their server status page, so you can see your options: https://mullvad.net/en/servers/
Source: Another convert from PIA to Mullvad post Kape.
https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/21/nordvpn-confirms-it-was-ha...
Unlikely. Signal and the ACLU were the ones who filed suit to allow them to disclose the terms of the warrant the first place.
It would be an incredibly expensive and risky move for them to do so if they knew that the judge could force them to reveal that they've been turning over more detailed user data in secret.
Not to mention that it would have amounted to perjury.
I chose NordVPN coz we can access from any server in the world and they have offered me good discount
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NordVPN#Security_issues_and_co...
I also read somewhere their CEO did something comprising to churn in more profits.
Maybe I will think about buying Mullvad subscription.
That describes literally most of the VPN service offerings out there.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/13/technology/telegram-signa...
Can they keep the money?
Is there not a suspicion that Google, another US-based corporation, may have some agreement with American national security to supply malicious APKs to individual targets via the Play Store? Having Signal’s signing key would allow the state to present that custom-targeted APK as an ordinary Signal version update.
If some government wants to get you they will get you, probably via your operating system... Signal won't help you. If that's your concern then you gotta stay off the internet to be honest!
> The American Civil Liberties Union announced Tuesday that Open Whisper Systems (OWS), the company behind popular encrypted messaging app Signal, was subpoenaed earlier this year by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia to hand over a slew of information—"subscriber name, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, method of payment"—on two of its users.
> ... “The only information responsive to the subpoena held by OWS is the time of account creation and the date of the last connection to Signal servers,” Kaufman continued, also pointing out that the company did in fact hand over this data.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/fbi-demands-sign...