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?

  • FreeWilliam@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    Jami.net

    Ignore the comment saying signal is “end to end encrypted” “private” etc They are simply stuck in a delusional state where they try to convince themselves that signal is the best option so they can continue using it. Nothing is private if it isn’t fully libre because you never know what the proprietary code is doing. The signal protocol itself has its source code released, and the encryption and security code is publicly available, but the signal Foundation has stated that it uses both free code and proprietary code. Their reason is UI, but it’s hard to make sure whatever proprietary code is being used for because you simply can’t see it. As GNU puts it: “You’re walking in a pitch black cave”. Jami is fully libre and is a GNU project. You don’t even need any phone number!

    • rirus@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Molly.im is a Signal Client fork with Security enhancements and the possibility to install a version with only free software.

    • MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      You can easily verify the keys of the person you’re speaking with, and they’re generated locally… so technically speaking, even if their servers are leaking, your messages are still unreadable, but yea that’s not ideal

        • MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          43 minutes ago

          ? Even if the servers are backdoored, your messages are still encrypted by your key - as long as the server didn’t manipulate the keys at the first exchange, which you can check by verifying the security code

          If it matches, then it’s okay. Such features exist in all encrypted messenger apps

    • solrize@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Jami, as much as I prefer it on various philosophical grounds, simply doesn’t work very well at the moment. :(

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      You should have visited Signal’s github page first, I dunno. Before talking. Made up a lot of stuff.

      They do have proprietary code for that crypto wallet they have there, well hidden, and for, eh, phone number registration, but other than that module it’s all released, I think.

      The server and the client applications are FOSS. You can host it for yourself, patching out the domain names and registration parts the way you like it more.

      • rirus@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        They also have Google Play Libraries included for Push Notifications and Maps.

      • FreeWilliam@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        That’s not the full picture. That’s exactly the problem I was highlighting. The issue isn’t whether some of the code is “FOSS”, it’s about whether all of it is. If even small parts remain proprietary (as you mentioned), then we can’t verify what those parts are doing. And those parts could theoretically significantly affect the data collection. Also, I didn’t make up a lot of stuff. The Signal Foundation themselves have confirmed that certain UI and build components are not fully libre. As the GNU project puts it, if part of your system is closed, then you’re trusting a black box, no matter how well-lit the rest of it is.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Signal protocol guarantees that what’s on the server we can discard in your suspicions, it doesn’t matter, because you are not trusting it.

          The client is fully open.

          • rirus@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            You are trusting the server, or do you verify the fingerprint of EVERY contact of yours? The normal people don’t, as Signals UI purpusfully doesn’t encourages it.

      • phx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 hours ago

        I didn’t actually know the server code was published. It’d be cool if the client allowed multiple servers so you could talk to people on the “normal” master while also thing a private instance

          • rirus@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            They had it implemented but discarded it out of stupid centralization ideology. Moxie said it on a Chaos communication Congress presentation he held but which he didn’t wanted to be recorded, as the stuff he said was stupid and wrong.