I remember a time when visiting a website that opens a javacript dialog box asking for your name so the message “hi <name entered>” could be displayed was baulked at.

Why does signal want a phone number to register? Is there a better alternative?

  • mikael@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Because they’re building a private, not anonymous, instant messenger. They’ve been very open about this.

  • pwalker@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    The amount of trolls in this thread that either try to spew false information intentionally or just have no idea what they are talking about is insane.

    If you are worried about what data (including your phone number) law enforcement can recieve (if they have your specific user ID, which is not equal to your phone number) from the Signal company check this: https://propertyofthepeople.org/document-detail/?doc-id=21114562 Tldr: It’s the date of registration and last time user was seen online. No other information, Signal just doesn’t have any other and this is by design.

    If you want to know more about how they accomplish that feat you can check out the sealed sender feature: https://nerdschalk.com/what-is-sealed-sender-in-signal-and-should-you-enable-it/

    or the private contact discovery system: https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/

    Also as Signal only requires a valid phone number for registration you might try some of these methods (not sure if they still work): https://theintercept.com/2024/07/16/signal-app-privacy-phone-number/

    • Arthur Besse@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      False.

      edit: it’s funny how people downvoting comments about signal’s sealed sender being a farce never even attempt to explain what its threat model is supposed to be. (meaning: what attacks, with which adversary capabilities specifically, is it designed to prevent?)

  • onlinepersona@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    There is a lot of FUD here. It’s just like anti-vaxxers claiming vaccines make you autistic or have microchips in them: they don’t understand what they’re talking about, have different threat models, and are paranoid.

    Messages are private on signal and they cannot be connected to you through sealed sender. There have been multiple audits and even government requests for information which have returned only the phone number and last connection time.

    Anti Commercial-AI license

    • Arthur Besse@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Messages are private on signal and they cannot be connected to you through sealed sender.

      No. Signal’s sealed sender has an incoherent threat model and only protects against an honest server, and if the server is assumed to be honest then a “no logs” policy would be sufficient.

      Sealed sender is complete security theater. And, just in case it is ever actually difficult for the server to infer who is who (eg, if there are many users behind the same NAT), the server can also simply turn it off and the client will silently fall back to “unsealed sender”. 🤡

      The fact that they go to this much dishonest effort to convince people that they “can’t” exploit their massive centralized trove of activists’ metadata is a pretty strong indicator of one answer to OP’s question.