[sharken]

So don't post state secrets on SMS. I hardly think that encryption is a major issue, unless you actually have something to hide.

But if Signal or a secure, universal SMS protocol could be agreed upon and used by Android and IPhone, that would be okay.

I just don't see that happening anytime soon.

[zrm]

> So don't post state secrets on SMS. I hardly think that encryption is a major issue, unless you actually have something to hide.

"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -Edward Snowden

> I just don't see that happening anytime soon.

You can install Signal right now for free. You don't require anyone's permission to do this.

[verdverm]

Would be nice if signal did not blast out a message to contacts that I've joined signal

[zrm]

It doesn't do that.

There is a setting in Signal to alert you when one of your contacts joins Signal. Only other people who have Signal receive this notification and they can turn it off.

They also don't receive the alert because they were in your contacts. They receive the alert because you were in their contacts.

[pessimizer]

That sounds even worse. Is there a setting when you join that doesn't blast it to everyone who has you as a contact?

[zrm]

> That sounds even worse.

It preserves the privacy of your contacts (no one learns that you have them as a contact) and people have a choice about whether to receive the notifications (it isn't spam). That's not worse.

> Is there a setting when you join that doesn't blast it to everyone who has you as a contact?

It isn't blasting it whatsoever. Their client is querying whether any of their contacts has Signal. If one does now that didn't before, and their client is configured to notify them when that happens, their client notifies them when that happens.

The client has to be able to determine whether it can use the network to contact a given peer. Removing the ability to provide a notification when that happens is just security through obscurity.

https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007061452-Do...

[samatman]

It's not clear to me what you're actually asking for.

Signal, like it or not (I feel both ways) is keyed on phone numbers. When you look for someone, that's what you look for, and unless someone messages you first, you have to look for them.

So anyone who has your phone number and thinks "hmm, is so and so on Signal?" will find out, yes.

What's the downside to them opting in to getting alerts that the answer is now yes? I find them annoying and turn it off, but I can't avoid anyone who has my number messaging me one time on Signal, that's just how the platform works.

[BeefWellington]

> So anyone who has your phone number and thinks "hmm, is so and so on Signal?" will find out, yes.

It would be more privacy preserving to prevent that user from ever knowing the answer until I send them a message.

The usual areas this is a problem are for example: bad exes, poor former business relations, anyone who is harassing/stalking someone, and so on. I enjoy Signal as an app but it's a bit disingenuous to pretend that there aren't other ways of architecting a messenger system that could preserve anonymity better.

[TedShiller]

Can you put a webcam in your bedroom? And send me all your emails and credit card statements?

Whenever people say they don’t care about privacy I ask them those questions, and curiously they never reply.

[throwawayboise]

Can you put a webcam in my bedroom? No.

Can you have my credit card statements? No.

Can you read my SMS messages? Eh, if you want to go to the trouble to intercept them, I don't really care. They're pretty boring, and I know they're not secure so I don't send anything sensitive over SMS.

[gsich]

How about you post them somewhere? Also your address please.

[throwawayboise]

No, if you want them, it's up to you to make the effort to get them.

[gsich]

So much to "nothing to hide".

[barbs]

It seems to me like you're being downvoted because it looks like you're making the "nothing to hide" argument. But a more charitable interpretation might indicate that you feel SMS still has utility despite being unencrypted, which I agree with.

If you have someone's phone number, you can just about guarantee that you can message them. It might not be encrypted, or have richer features like other messaging services, or it might even be expensive, but it's fairly reliable and doesn't require any third-party apps. Just like how you might shout to someone at a distance to get their attention and convey important information, but you wouldn't shout their credit card number to them.

[TedShiller]

He's one of those conflicted people that have nothing to hide, and yet are hiding everything.