Some are quick to promote apps as being safe for your use just because they are encrypted. I will talk about how many of the popular apps that are commonly t...
Because “slightly less” is a subjective measure that’s relative to how pedantic we want to get.
Even XMPP is a “slightly less” bad option, in the sense that you are still targetable when using a sufficiently advanced method, and you are still not free of risk. Even hosting your own instance you give away the IP, if you don’t hsot it then you do have to trust the host, since it does store metadata (maybe more so than Signal).
So? We are talking about the risk of using your phone number as the public identifier. So any service that doesn’t use phone numbers at all is by definition in a completely different league then one that does.
I am not talking about some hypothetical extreme privacy considerations, but the very real problem of using phone numbers and the huge number of issues associated with that.
I thought we were talking about security and privacy in general, applied to messaging platforms. Specifically, comparing Telegram/Whatsapp with Signal.
If you want to talk exclusively about phone numbers then it’s obvious that if a messaging system doesn’t use phone numbers there’s no risk that metadata related to phone number is the one that’ll get leaked.
Whether you want to make them be “a completelly different league” based on that distinction alone is an arbitrary separation. By that logic XMPP would be in the same “league” as unencrypted email.
If Signal is the same as Telegram just because of phone number leaks (regardless of other protection), then email is the same as XMPP becuause it doesn’t (regardless of other protection).
Looks like you only care about other methods of protection when comparing XMPP.
Enjoy your own bias (and I don’t even use Signal xD).
Because “slightly less” is a subjective measure that’s relative to how pedantic we want to get.
Even XMPP is a “slightly less” bad option, in the sense that you are still targetable when using a sufficiently advanced method, and you are still not free of risk. Even hosting your own instance you give away the IP, if you don’t hsot it then you do have to trust the host, since it does store metadata (maybe more so than Signal).
So? We are talking about the risk of using your phone number as the public identifier. So any service that doesn’t use phone numbers at all is by definition in a completely different league then one that does.
I am not talking about some hypothetical extreme privacy considerations, but the very real problem of using phone numbers and the huge number of issues associated with that.
I thought we were talking about security and privacy in general, applied to messaging platforms. Specifically, comparing Telegram/Whatsapp with Signal.
If you want to talk exclusively about phone numbers then it’s obvious that if a messaging system doesn’t use phone numbers there’s no risk that metadata related to phone number is the one that’ll get leaked.
Whether you want to make them be “a completelly different league” based on that distinction alone is an arbitrary separation. By that logic XMPP would be in the same “league” as unencrypted email.
XMPP is fully end 2 end encrypted these days.
“So? We are talking about the risk of using your phone number as the public identifier.”
yeah, but don’t compare xmpp to unencrypted email.
According to your logic, they are the same. Otherwise, don’t compare Signal to Telegram/Whatsapp.
haha, now you are talking shit. Have fun using Signal.
Are you calling your own logic shit?
If Signal is the same as Telegram just because of phone number leaks (regardless of other protection), then email is the same as XMPP becuause it doesn’t (regardless of other protection).
Looks like you only care about other methods of protection when comparing XMPP.
Enjoy your own bias (and I don’t even use Signal xD).