this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
20 points (70.8% liked)

Privacy

31273 readers
894 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Convincing people to use apps such as Signal is hard work and most can't be convinced. But with those you manage to convince, do you feel happy to talk to them on Signal?

The problem is these people use Signal on Android/IOS which can't be trusted and IOS has recently been in the news for having a backdoor. And it has also been revealed that american feds are able to read everyone's push notifications and they do this as mass surveillance.

So not only do you have to convince people to use Signal which is an incredibly difficult challenge. You also have to convince them to go into settings to disable message and sender being included in the push notifications. And then there's the big question is the Android and IOS operating systems are doing mass surveillance anyway. And many people find it taking a lot of effort to type on the phone so they install Signal on the computer which is a mac or Windows OS.

So I don't think I feel comfortable sending messages in Signal but it's better than Whatsapp.

These were some thoughts to get the discussion started and set the context.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children)

You are just spreading misinformation! Cite your sources!

There is a strategy used, which allows the government to find out who an account belongs to. They ask the push providers (Apple/Google) for data on the push token from e.g. a messaging app. This way they associate the account from an app with an identity.

Nothing there about message content. It is still safely E2EE.

~~I don’t know how it works in your country, but in mine, phone numbers are already associated with identities, so nothing gained as the gov can just ask signal for the phone number of an account, instead of having to ask signal and the push provider to get the identity.~~ (Edit: apparently it’s hashed, so there seems to be a use for this.) Signal isn’t about Anonymity but Privacy. There is a difference.

If you have another vulnerability cite it!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

good points altough the number is note saved. the hash of the phonenumber is hashed so Signal could not hand out your number, just the hash.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 hours ago

Thanks for pointing that out to me, I wasn‘t aware of that.

[–] refalo 4 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

They ask the push providers (Apple/Google) for data on the push token from e.g. a messaging app. This way they associate the account from an app with an identity.

Very overlooked point. You can find privacy guides online but very few even suggest that FCM etc. might have privacy issues, let alone explain exactly why. It seems this has already been used by law enforcement in the past: https://www.wired.com/story/apple-google-push-notification-surveillance/

The Molly-FOSS fork of Signal (which aims to be even more secure/private) actually supports self-hosted push notifications using UnifiedPush.

I also found this comment:

As far as I know, FCM on Android can be configured to use a notification payload (which is piped through Google's servers). But for a release app this is discouraged, especially if you are privacy conscious. An app would normally use FCM to receive a trigger and look up the received message from the app's own backend. See here for more information.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

The way I see it, any step is better than no step at all.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 hours ago

Yep, none of us got to where we are all at once. We learned about things over time, and made changes over time.

It's a process just like any other type of personal development/ habit building

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

Signal is not my tool of choice, so I'll answer from a more general perspective:

Having multiple friends and social groups on an e2ee chat system for the past few years feels great. Knowing that our words aren't being recorded and exploited by half a dozen companies, we no longer feel the need to self-censor. The depth and value of our online conversations have grown noticeably.

Yes, there is more work to do, both at the endpoints and in the protocols. No, not all of us have flipped all the switches to maximize our privacy yet. That's okay. Migrating is a gradual process. We do it together, helping each other along the way, rather than trying to force it all at once. Every step an improvement.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 hours ago

This is exactly my take. It basically holds for Signal too.

The question of self-censorship is too often overlooked IMO. The knowledge that nobody is reading your messages except their intended recipients is empowering and liberating. No one is filling a database with information about you and your friends, because they can't. You can say exactly what you would say at the dinner table and not think twice about it.

In a police state with mass surveillance (we all know the big examples) you don't have this privilege. Whether or not you think about it consciously, you are constantly monitoring and policing what you say - and therefore ultimately, to some extent, what you think.

I've been in a couple of those places recently. I can tell you that just the banal act of using Signal there (sometimes over VPN) felt almost exhilarating, like jumping the prison walls.

In historical terms, free speech is a vanishing rare thing. It absolutely is not the norm and it bothers me that so many people in the West don't seem to know this. We should not take it for granted.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Yeah, Signal is good enough. If people use shitty operating systems like iOS or Google's version of Android that's another problem and not really one that it's my job to care about that much. What matters is the network effect and every user who moves moves from Whatsapp to Signal is one more person who gains the freedom to easily improve their digital lives further if they someday choose to do so without it costing them the ability to chat with all their friends.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Signal refuses to even try to accommodate for UnifiedPush or MQTT for those not using play services requiring an extra battery-draining socket to their servers. You are also still required to use one of the mobile duopoly OSs as a primary device to register (SIM still required). Good luck if you use a Linux phone, KaiOS, or just don’t want an ever-present tracking beacon on you. We all know the Electron-based desktop client is shit. I would flip this on its head & say it is the service’s probably if they choose to prioritize & mainly support the shitty mobile OS duopoly it’s their problem for providing a bad service & getting the criticism they deserve.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

The problem I have with Signal is that it itself pushes people onto the "shitty operating systems". It does not allow registering from desktop, at least officially. There are workarounds, but they're cumbersome (especially for a non-technical person, whom Signal is supposed to appeal to), and the official client outright tells you go to use a phone first. And even then, apparently the desktop client is not even full-featured, and not the priority.

I know there are degoogled OSes (running Graphene myself), but you'd need to get lucky or choose a phone with this in mind, while a random given laptop is likely to be able to run Linux.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I would certainly advise everyone to choose a phone with that in mind.

The desktop client is not great, but it works. There certainly are things Signal could do better. Its phone-centric nature is ridiculous and I have no idea why they cling to it. But it's easier than trying to get everyone to use Matrix or whatever — mainly because more people have heard of it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 hours ago

For my current phone, I did - I chose a Pixel. But I got aware about OS privacy while in the middle of using an unsupported phone, so for a while, I treated it as a "public place". So making a phone private may not be viable for everyone.

Plus, the supported phones may be more expensive. Even my current one was $300, which is a lot for me, in addition to not being officially sold here.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Took years to get all the ppl I care about on signal & now the effort was definitely worth the reward.

Why don’t you feel comfortable on signal? Honestly it’s worked out for the best in my use case bc I have ppl that use android, iOS, windows, Linux & macOS, so it’s great to not have to deal with shit media quality or messages not going through bc of all the different operating systems. It’s E2EE so I’m not too worried about mass surveillance within my signal groups.

Also, iOS back door? I must have missed that. Haven’t seen any news about that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

That is an iMessage exploit, nothing to do with push notifications. He might be referring to this, which allows associating an account with an identity, but it’s not what he is claiming (content decryption) either. So as long as no sources are provided he is just spreading FUD

[–] [email protected] 9 points 13 hours ago (5 children)

“Feel,” “happy,” “comfortable”… Privacy doesn’t care about your feelings.

And it has also been revealed that american feds are able to read everyone’s push notifications and they do this as mass surveillance.

Speaking of the feds, it was they who funded the creation of Signal, which is one of the reasons it ought not be trusted.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago

“Feel,” “happy,” “comfortable”… Privacy doesn’t care about your feelings.

The motivation to do the work, spend time learning the risks and available mitigations, disrupt existing social connections in order to adopt something better, inconvenience friends and family, partially isolate one's self by avoiding the popular systems... all of these things are part of improving privacy in the real world, and at least for many people, fueled by a person's feelings. Don't discount the human factors just because you can't quantify them.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 12 hours ago (8 children)

They funded encryption too. Why don't you stop using that?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Wait until they find out who started the internet. Or who runs GPS satellites

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Wow, the whole argument of the article is basically: funded in part by US government = bad, and making a lot of assumptions, nothing more.

The fund is designated to: “support open technologies and communities that increase free expression, circumvent censorship, and obstruct repressive surveillance as a way to promote human rights and open societies."

One should question the commitment of a fund that dedicates itself to "obstructing surveillance", while being created by a government who runs the most expansive surveillance system in world history. And how the US might define the terms "human rights", and "open society" differently from those who know the US's history in those areas.

How laughable, that is not an argument, it’s nothing more than a guessing game, ignoring that there are different parts of government and different objectives can be true.

Signal's use luckily never caught on by the general public of China, whose government prefers autonomy, rather than letting US tech control its communication platforms, as most of the rest of the world naively allows. (For example, India's most popular social media apps, are Facebook and Youtube, meaning that US surveillance giants own and control the everyday communications of a country much larger than their own). Signal instead became used by US and western activists, and due to the contradictions of surveillance capitalism, also now its general populace.

You have to be kidding right? Championing china, which created a fucking surveillance state and is heavily monitoring the citizens, as an example?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

This is the ideal scenario as I see it, in order of importance:

  1. industry-standard E2E encryption using open-source software on the client (privacy)
  2. distributed server network controlled by many entities (resilience)
  3. open-source, open-standards, interoperable software on both client and server (user autonomy)

As I understand it, the goldilocks solution is therefore the Matrix stack. BUT! It's hard to set up and nobody uses it!

The best real-world option, with feasible UX and an existing critical mass of users, is therefore Signal. It only fully meets the first criterion, yes. But personally I give it a bit of credit for the second too, in that it belongs to a non-profit foundation with multiple stakeholders, somewhat like Wikimedia. Signal will do while we're waiting for a proper email-like open standard for secure messaging.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

There are several open protocols that meet your criteria that aren’t Matrix (with most of them using double-ratchet encryption similar to if not exactly like Signal). Due to server costs (Matrix eats a lot of RAM & storage), medium-sized entities usually bow out so the Matrix network largely consist of a few 1–10 user servers & massive centralization around Matrix.org & the hosted servers they provide. Since almost all the messages get synced to the Matrix.org server if just one Matrix.org user is in your room or whatever, Matrix have the largest access to all that metadata.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago
  1. distributed server network controlled by many entities (resilience)

It only fully meets the first criterion, yes. But personally I give it a bit of credit for the second too, in that it belongs to a non-profit foundation with multiple stakeholders, somewhat like Wikimedia.

These two things are not at all equivalent, or even comparable.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 hours ago

the Matrix stack. BUT! It’s hard to set up and nobody uses it!

Is it really that hard? For me it was just downloading an app and creating an account--easier than setting up Facebook Messenger. I think it doesn't yet have the network that Messenger/Signal/Whatsapp have, which makes it harder to use with others, but setting up has been easy in my experience.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 12 hours ago

Got to start somewhere.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 12 hours ago (5 children)

Is there any reason to believe the message and sender can be read from the data sent to the push service? From my understanding, that should still be encrypted.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

indeed they are ☞ President of @signalapp : https://mastodon.world/@Mer__edith/111563865413484025

PSA: We've received questions about push notifications. First: push notifications for Signal NEVER contain sensitive unencrypted data & do not reveal the contents of any Signal messages or calls–not to Apple, not to Google, not to anyone but you & the people you're talking to.

In Signal, push notifications simply act as a ping that tells the app to wake up. They don't reveal who sent the message or who is calling (not to Apple, Google, or anyone). Notifications are processed entirely on your device. This is different from many other apps.

What's the background here? Currently, in order to enable push notifications on the dominant mobile operating systems (iOS and Android) those building and maintaining apps like Signal need to use services offered by Apple and Google.

Apple simply doesn’t let you do it another way. And Google, well you could (and we've tried), but the cost to battery life is devastating for performance, rendering this a false option if you want to build a usable, practical, dependable app for people all over the world.*

So, while we do not love Big Tech choke points and the control that a handful of companies wield over the tech ecosystem, we do everything we can to ensure that in spite of this dynamic, if you use Signal your privacy is preserved.

*(Note, if you are among the small number of people that run alt Android-based operating systems that don't include Google libraries, we implement the battery-destroying push option, and hope you have ways to navigate.)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

Thanks, wish I'd found this earlier.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

I figure it's best to assume that there is no privacy on the internet.

I've been in IT to close to 40 years and I don't say anything online that I wouldn't say in public.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 12 hours ago

Be paranoid in your estimation of how much privacy you have, but diligent in your efforts to get more of it for everyone.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 hours ago

Cynicism is a self-fulfilling prophesy. If everything's bad then there's no reason to care, and if nobody cares then everything will be bad.

For things to get better, or not get worse, cynics depend on others to care about those things. To me that feels terribly like freeloading.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (4 children)

Will people read this and stop using the internet or stop caring about privacy?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

Signal runs a service. Even if its source code is open source there’s no guarantee that that’s the code running on the server.

I don’t know the protocol, but I am concerned of man in the middle and how safe it is from man in the middle. In this case signal servers must be considered to be man in the middle.

The only system to trust is peer to peer with proven track record of sending encrypted data over public channels.

That’s PGP and Delta Chat utilizing PGP.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

If the client software is open source with reproducible build, then you don't need to care about what's running on the server. You will never have any means to confirm what's running on the server, because you don't control the server. That is why EE2E was invented.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

but if this is your argument, you could also say that Telegram is good because their client can also be built from their open source. of course you have to activate e2ee on a 1-1 chat first...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

If the E2EE is enabled and the client software source is available and reproducible, then, indeed, it could be called Telegram or anything else, it doesn't matter.

The particular issue with Telegram is, as you say, the default setting. And also that its encryption algo is not universally trusted.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

ok but if the source of the server is not know, how can the client be save?

I know how e2ee works but couldn't a bad closed-source server still be a problem?

btw. not trying to call you out, I just really want to know, cuz I cant get my head around it 🙈🙊

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The message is encrypted using a key. The key exchange was done over a direct secure channel to the other client, in much the same way as you connect to your bank's website using HTTPS. The server therefore does not have the key and can only see encrypted text.

Assuming the client software has not been compromised at either end, then the server will never see anything other than garbled ciphertext.

BTW, this is also the case with Whatsapp, for example. But the problem with Whatsapp is that the client software is closed source. So you have to trust them not to, for example, surreptitiously phone home with a separate copy of your message. Very unlikely but you have no way to check when the client software is a black box.

But what's running on the server is not the issue in either case.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 51 minutes ago

ah ok. that makes sence. so only if the secure channel of the key exchange is somrhow attacked, the encryption can be broken, correct? i dont wanna ever use telegram (not even on 1-1 e2ee chat) but basically they are still bad since they use encryption wich is not a standard and could be compromised?

(i hope thats it with all the question i have 🙈)

load more comments
view more: next ›