this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2024
106 points (93.4% liked)
Ukraine
8044 readers
487 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
*Sympathy for enemy combatants in any form is prohibited.
*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's a very bold claim the author of the article makes.
I'm not aware of any messenger that is more secure. In fact, almost every other encrypted messenger uses the same algorithm.
It might not by the most anonymous messenger (as there is Session and Threema for example that don't require a phone number) but it's probably the most secure.
Signal no longer requires a phone number either.
It does. You can share your username with others. But for registering it still requires one and your account is still linked to one.
Well, that’s true but it barely affects anonymity.
All that can be determined from that is that the number in question has a signal account, and how recently the account has checked for messages. It doesn’t tie messages or contacts to the number. (Any more)
Actually, it does not. Signal cannot build social graphs based on communications. This is one of many unique inventions that Signal implemented and what makes Signal so great.
Well even then it's not the most secure but one of the most secure, no?
Here is where I gave up reading lol
WhatsApp does use that same Signal protocol for its messages but that's very poor writing considering all the tracked metadata arguably makes it just as insecure as Telegram.
Ownership by Facebook renders WhatsApp inherently untrustworthy.
So the Hunter Biden case is a complete farce but I found it alarming that they were proving WhatsApp messages as evidence during the trial. Clearly the messages aren't encrypted against Meta, or they hold keys users don't know about or they wouldn't be able to furnish messages.
Or possibly a user's phone who was a party to the Whatsapp conversation was collected as evidence and unlocked by the user.
Good point, had not considered that.
I might be missing the point, but isn’t this a decently dumbed-down description of the difference between services that are end-to-end encrypted and those that are not?
Are you saying that is wrong?
'Truly secure' and 'whatsapp' don't belong in the same sentence, I don't know what else to say but that it is laughable.
Ah, gotcha. I thought your gripe was with the encrypted vs end to end encrypted bit.