I dislike when they say in news clips that Signal represents the “current gold standard” for E2EE chats, it doesn't, Signal is a helluva lot better than the commercial stuff that mines user data but there's stuff like SimpleX Chat that doesn't leak even metadata because it doesn't have it.
Still, this is a good thing, these megacorps have their iron grip on people because they have raised walls around their services making it painful for people to move to a different service, tearing down those walls can only help us all.
Thanks for the tip about SimpleX, that looks interesting! I could never use Signal due to the way they operate and force you to rely on their and Google's servers, actively blocking forks from their network. So much for FOSS...
SimpleX is very neat. But it cannot do multiple devices unless you count shutting down, exporting database to new device replacing existing database as a sensible workflow. Using the database on two devices at once will break encryption and cause all sorts of weird problems.
They do provide an apk outside of the Play Store, that uses a Web Socket for push notifications. Not he best way of going about it, but hey, it exists.
Signal encryption can be taken out of the app and applied elsewhere, because it has been already done. SimpleX is nice but this is single app single implementation thing.
At least we know that this won't be open federation. But still maybe some company could bridge them or at least could become a JMP.chat like service for WhatsApp.
Meta says that it will only allow third-party developers to use another protocol besides Signal, “if they are able to demonstrate it offers the same security guarantees as Signal.”
If matrix finally finishes implementing MLS, maybe they could convince meta to use it.
Last time they touched an open chat protocol, they hung it out to dry. That was XMPP. That's why more than half of the fediverse is reluctant or outright hostile to federate with anything meta.
You are underplaying the damage Google and FB did to XMPP. It wasn't supposed to be relegated to an obscure backend protocol. The involvement of those companies ensured that it didn't become a popular user-facing protocol.
So I [in theory, I don't know how to start with this on a technical level] could make a third-party Signal-compatible app, but allow it to connect to Whatsapp instead of Signal? Even if I can't use my Signal account to contact Whatsapp people, that's still potentially useful. Although I imagine the terms I'd have to agree to to do so would be full of nonsense that stops this being remotely feasible.
I guess I'm misunderstanding here - I thought Whatsapp would be the "service" in my case, I'm just making a client to hook into their, presumably open [to people who agree to whatever their terms are] API. So it's more of a federation thing between services?
Sure, but any messaging app (including Signal) could have these backdoors in place. Heck, there's even vectors for unrelated apps on your phone to read this data once unencrypted.
That's actually true. We don't know the real-time server code of Signal. Though other apps cannot read what's written inside Signal, that's the good part. I prefer private server + Matrix but Signal is the easiest for regular people.
Whatsapp CANNOT read messages when e2ee is enabled, this client-side snooping was discussed when the protocol was first implemented. Whatsapp collects a ton of metadata and social graph info, but not message content.
Them being nonprofit has nothing to do with the pursuit of marketshare. Plenty of nonprofits want to maximize marketshare. Them being nonprofit means they are mission-driven.
Them being nonprofit has nothing to do with the pursuit of marketshare.
Um, of course it does? LOL
Them being nonprofit means they are mission-driven.
And what is that mission?
Let's talk about what the opposite of their mission is: Mainly operating as a source of data collection and revenue for a corporate surveillance and advertising agency.
Do they want more users? Sure. Are they going to compromise on their core principles out of convenience for their users? Abso-fuckin-lutely not.
There's also the opposite to consider: that users would decide to use WhatsApp instead of Signal because they can, which then puts you in the uncomfortable position I find myself in often where I have to tell people I'm not accepting their messages from insecure platforms.
I don't think it's ever happened to me that anyone told me that it was inconvenient for them that I didn't have iMessage, compared to pretty much weekly exclamations of "But why can't you just use WhatsApp like everyone else!?"
Kinda true in Europe though. Don't know anyone who uses iMessage, it's pretty much irrelevant. I know the situation in the US is quite different, but ultimately they don't regulate for the US market.
Apple would still feel pressure to add interoperability if all other big players do. iMessage would have a competitive disadvantage if it's the only one where users are unable to message the rest of the world.
Yes. Still, it would be harder to not give a f if others walled gardens open up, and iMessage get disadvantaged by that wall.
It's as if iPhones were only able to make calls to other iPhones. Whereas all other devices where able to make calls to any device from any other vendor.
It's annoying as fuck when I message my wife a video of our kids, it looks like dog shit on her iPhone. I have to instead send it on Whatsapp or signal. I hate apple
That's because you're using SMS, that's not the fault of the messaging app. Using a third party messaging app is the correct way to go, it's encrypted, supports group chats, and bigger messages.
Specification may be not controlled by Google, but the single available client implementation is controlled by Google and almost all carriers are delegating managing their RCS servers to Google.
While XMPP or Matrix server you can host even on your LAN network between two computers.
Apple can implement RCS, but what then?
Currently people not using Apple approved device in US can be marginalized. After RCS people not using Apple or Google approved device are going to be marginalized. And they both have wide requirements in order to be approved, recently Google started requiring Play Integrity check. So no RCS after you get rid of YouTube app for example.
This is the same discussion all over about defaults like if this was LibreOffice vs MS Office debate.
If you did root your phone, you can turn RCS back on with the standard Magisk hiding procedures
I really do not want to use hacks like that in order to send a text message.
It reminds me of the:
Voting in elections now requires buying a Big Mac and having receipt for verification, I don't want that.
No problem with that, just ask a friend to buy it for you. Or you can just fake
A messaging standard that requires carrier, phone modem and phone operating system all implementing in order for it to work is outdated mindset from the era of flip-phones. We have Internet now, which allows sending any data to any device and we have installable apps that can send anything through it. Implementing an awful and already outdated standard in a most user freedom unfriendly manner just to replace even more outdated standard is not great.
Imagine if Google now started promoting a FAX 2.0 protocol for fax machines, which would implement some of basic email features already being in email for 20. No, just use email and if your friends do not have it show them how to use it.
Why not convince people to use Signal as well? Even my family has a group chat on Signal. Of course, it's a slow move with most people sticking to non-open chats. But it's worth the effort I would say.
Most of the world doesn't use SMS, they use WhatsApp. Plus, SMS is even worse than WhatsApp for privacy and security. And stopping using WhatsApp in most of the world is like not using email, so no "I don't have WhatsApp, you can only contact me through signal" is possible.
I don't just mean socially speaking. But for contacting services and stuff. My car insurance company only accepts reports through Whatsapp or through calling a guy to come look at your face for a fee.
In some different countries, WhatsApp is how people conduct business. I am anti WhatsApp in my regular life, but I used it with a VOIP number when I was traveling abroad.
It's one thing to tell your friends and family you use Signal, you can't tell literally every business. Well, you can, they just won't to do business with you.
It might work with people you know but is harder to convince people you just met, that's the reason I still use Whatsapp and recently opened an Instagram.
Meanwhile I can do all that what you describe on Signal just as easily as that. A friend of mine often sends me Instagram reels on signal because I don't have any insta account. And I actually don't know anyone who has or at least uses a fb account anymore xD
It depends on whether they get a fair offer, or a bullshit one that has to work through the courts and be officially ruled bullshit before they'll offer anything better.
Yeah I believe this to be a fallacy. If all your contacts use WhatsApp, they still haven't grasped the concept of installing two applications side-by-side. Or they don't fully understand why people are using signal over WhatsApp. If you fail both of those, congratulations, you've failed to be a self-aware tech user and you're now demoted to a braindead consumer.
I know, mind blowing right? Point is, society in general should not accept others forcing you to keep the WhatsApp monopoly in tact, which is exactly what's happening here.
It will take some time but eventually adoption will spread, even among your contacts. It's just a matter of critical mass, and there are some pretty compelling features within Signal that make it a worthy replacement.
Eh, my missus insisted we use Signal, but it's just flat out not as reliable. It misses messages very occasionally and it's always at the worst possible time.
Like I get that it's a tiny bit more private than Whatsapp, but I'm not running a terror cell or a paedo ring over here. I just want to know if she wants anything from the shop.
It's private and you can verify that, not to mention it's non-profit. WhatsApp claims to be private but Meta has broken promises before and doesn't let us look at source code. It's not a "tiny bit"