this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
87 points (93.1% liked)
Privacy
31874 readers
468 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
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well,I am quite suspicious just about signal as company.And have some reasons for that.
To keep Signal a free global communication service without spam, we must depart from our totally-open posture and develop one piece of the server in private: a system for detecting and disrupting spam campaignshttps://signal.org/blog/keeping-spam-off-signal/Hmm, good points.
Most of these have some kind of (strong or weak) counter-arguments.
I have mixed thoughts about the first point, they kinda have some good points though.2 and 4 got resolved, very critical issues nonetheless, shouldn't have happened. The 3rd point seems kinda OK, I'm sure they would like the idea of making that open-source, but that would probably make it bypassable, correct me if im wrong. I didn't know about the fifth! The reason they gave also seems defenseless.
Not trying to hate or back up Signal here, just my opinions.
There's no reason you can't open source anti spam. The only reasons not to do so are that it's either absurdly to bypass if it's known, which makes it useless, or if they don't want it visible.
Why wouldn't they want extra eyes on it? That's how a lot of vulnerabilities get found, people actually checking the code and testing it.
That suggests some other reason, and they haven't said (that I'm aware of). Since that means that part can't be trusted, you can't trust the rest of it either. That isn't to say you can't choose to use it, but you're using it blind, which makes it no more secure or private than telegram or any other options.
Hmm, yeah true. More people can take a look at the code, find vulnarabilities and fix it. Then it should be open-source too, since it would also be hard to bypass even if that happened. So there's not really an argument to not make it open-source.