Re:Signal Server code on GitHub is up to date again
by Vinnl on Wednesday April 07, 2021 @12:45PM
(#26727437)
And of course, that's exactly why people were recommending Signal. Of all the practically frictionless apps it provided best encryption.
Re:Signal Server code on GitHub is up to date again
by dtx1 on Wednesday April 07, 2021 @01:25PM
(#26727955)
privacy isn't just encryption. Forcing users to link their phone number as an identifier like signal does is just one of the myriad of questionable choices signal has made. And with their coin based payment they just painted a large bullseye on them.
Re:Signal Server code on GitHub is up to date again
by Vinnl on Thursday April 08, 2021 @07:57AM
(#26737653)
Sure, and if there had been a frictionless alternative that didn't require that, that would've been great - but there wasn't.
Re:Signal Server code on GitHub is up to date again
by dtx1 on Wednesday April 07, 2021 @01:28PM
(#26727983)
> I saw this at eBay and PayPal a few times, where the user rejected a free security token despite having been scammed multiple times.
People here downvote me for this but this is the issue. Those people cannot be helped and they don't want help. They chose this and have to live with the consequences. There's no right to easy computing.
Those of us who have worked in security have known this for years. There are countless examples of massive security gains through minor inconvenience, and users rejecting them. Two factor auth is a big one. Yeah, it's a slight hassle. It gives major security improvements. Even security people don't like to use it. Even people who have been scammed multiple times, and told if they just turned on 2FA it help, would rather deal with being scammed again than use 2FA (I saw this at eBay and PayPal a few times, where the user rejected a free security token despite having been scammed multiple times).
Users hate friction. If it's not as easy as "download app, put in contacts" they aren't interested.