Is this the least-bad privacy chat or is there something better that's still decently well used?
>asks for your phone number
>>108947681it's not even close. if you can't use Tor and directly talk to the person without giving any information whatsoever, it's not close to "least-bad".
>>108947748>>108947763privacy =/= anonymity
>>108947781Yes, and? If you cannot use Tor, and cannot DIRECTLY talk to the person without giving ANY INFORMATION to third parties whatsoever, it's not close to least-bad in a privacy sense. Do you not understand why this is the case?
>>108947791I do understand.
It is the best balance between privacy and network effect/usability.Phone number matters if you're actually doing crimes, but if you just don't want your message data harvested, it doesn't matter.I'm not doing crimes with my friends and family, so I can talk to them using Signal.
>>108947681>requires a phone number>demands otp reverification if it detects a throwaway>verification challenges deliberately break if completed using a correctly configured tor due to circuit rotation>actively resists tor usage>official electron client respects the same HTTP_PROXY environment variable but attempts to deanonymize you by leaking requests to giphy or whatever using normal routing table, not the configured proxy>advertises voluntary privacy features it is impossible to enforce - simply using an alternative client compromises disappearing messages, temporary images>depends on a singular set of centralized services>awsit's slop you use to talk to normies that use cell phones and social media. at least double ratchet is pretty bulletproof and easy to use so it's been reimplemented for basically every other open IM protocol's e2e
>>108947781Anonymity is privacy of identity....the one entails the other.
>>108948179>You only need to worry about your data being harvested if you're one of those criminals!This is a tired argument that has been dismantled a million times already. This isn't 2010 anymore, people should know better.
>>108948422If I'm going to do some crime where my identity being linked to metadata is relevant, I will use a different specific channel just for that. In the niche Signal fills, it just isn't relevant.You're remembering bad arguments made against encryption in general and linking it to my point about phone number + metadata, but that isn't what I'm saying here at all. I encourage you and everyone else to encrypt even for normal conversations.
depends on what you need
>>108948499>If I'm going to do some crime where my identity being linked to metadata is relevant, I will use a different specific channel just for that.Alright?>In the niche Signal fills, it just isn't relevant.Yeah no, it's relevant for many people. Your statement, "if you just don't want your message data harvested, it doesn't matter", is obviously misleading.>You're remembering bad arguments made against encryption in general and linking it to my point about phone number + metadataNo, I'm really not.
There is keet that's p2p with no servers or signup, but it is not fully open source so it might as well be bugged.
>>108947681Session
>>108948179>network effectYes, NSA certainly advertised it well.
>>108948601Your post can be distilled down to "no, no, no!" so there's really nothing to engage with here.
>>108947791tor, by design, routes all network traffic through like 7 3rd parties
>>108948755>no pfs>>108948251>leaking requests to giphyNo requests are made to giphy directly. Did you even try it?https://signal.org/blog/signal-and-giphy-update/
>>108948601>it's relevant for many peoplewho?
>>108948856>no pfsIf you get paranoid about state level actors, then you shouldn't use signal.
>>108948833Yeah that's not what I said though, is it?>>108948847You could say that about all internet traffic. Why do you people struggle with thinking so much?>>108948868Some have more to lose than you, it's bad if any message data is associated with them.
>>108949386>Some have more to lose than you, it's bad if any message data is associated with them.explain. who?
>>108949417Informants? People being targeted by corrupt law enforcement? Whistleblowers? We're not even talking about state actors, just determined individuals or groups. Is this a trick question? Some people just want to feel more at ease, and so all of this is highly relevant.
>>108948868Just for instance, any non jewish aligned journalist would be mad to use Signal.The encryption of Signal is fine, but for purpose of tracking the social network of users Signal is pretty much purpose designed to be a NSA only datasource (sealed sender doesn't do much against an adversary with that level of network access). Depending on administration that means it can go straight to Mossad and AIPAC too.If that's your threat model, even Whatsapp is better, at least a bigger crowd to hide in.
>>108949484>feel more at easewe're having a technical discussion here. really doesn't matter what someone feels.>We're not even talking about state actors, just determined individuals or groups.how's that's going to work? outline that because it sounds implausible.>>108949565whatsapp recently had the possibility of meta-facilitated rce in the client, so not a great example. the encryption is the same, but the client isn't.i'm not a dissident journalist, whistleblower, or any of the rest of those things. just someone who doesn't want the content of my messages read and potentially sold, and someone who wants to actually be able to get my family to use the app that facilitates that. if i decide to become a person of interest i'll use Tor and PGP encrypted text.
why dosent 4chan just make oneremember that time 4chan tried to make proplex or wahtever it was called
>>108949718oh right thishttps://www.wired.com/story/tox-skype-replacement/tox not proplex lol
>>108949718>4chan>privacy>securitynigga...you can bet there are at least 3 foreign state actors inside the 4chan servers logging everything right nowit's like an AIDS party up in there
>>108949773if the program is open sores whats the issue
>>108949670>we're having a technical discussion here. really doesn't matter what someone feels.You are correct, that part of my answer was irrelevant.>how's that's going to work? outline that because it sounds implausible.Like I would know. You might want to re-read the thread.
>>108947681I've heard good things about SimpleX but I've never actually used it because I don't have any friends schizo enough to try it.
>>108948856>Did you even try it?within the last 6 months i have used signal behind an http proxy with all other requests blocked by firewall. opening the gif board then fails. i didn't investigate further, only observed that in one manner or another, it's unambiguously circumventing the proxy environment variables. ie a leak. whether that's to giphy or signal, what difference does it make? it doesn't respect it. did YOU even try it?
