• Dreeg Ocedam@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 years ago

    This article is just an ad for the book of the author.

    It just shows that Signal received a bit of funding from the US government via the Open Tech Fund like many other projects.

    It does make a fair point that the fight for privacy should be more political and less technogical but it’s not like people aren’t trying.

    • Dessalines@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 years ago

      Its definitely not irrelevant that signal was funded and may still be funded by the US government. That no one seems to dispute that, and think that there’s no conflict of interest between the worlds biggest abuser of digital privacy funding the supposedly secure apps they use every day, is boggling to me.

      • Dreeg Ocedam@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 years ago

        It’s not irrelevant but it’s not proof of anything either, and does not justify the clickbait title…

        Many organisations everywhere in the world receive government funding but it doesn’t mean that they’re intelligence agencies’ honeypots. Matrix has received contributions from the French and German government, yet that doesn’t mean it’s a government op.

      • 2wT@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 years ago

        The Tor project is also funded by the us government, that doesn’t make it less secure.

        With open source software you don’t need to trust that nothing shady is going on in its source code.

        • Dessalines@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 years ago

          Tor has decentralized nodes, signal is a single central server with no verification of what’s running on it ( that also uses phone numbers, which are tied to you identity, as its primary identifier). Also as a US company it’d be illegal for them to disclose if their server has been compromised.

  • poVoq@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 years ago

    Without any proof either way my gut feeling tells me that it is probably not a deliberate US government honeypot, but there are just too many ways the US government can compromise some of the Signal employees in charge of the server software and code development, which makes Signal inherently untrustworthy.

    • 2wT@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 years ago

      You don’t need to trust the organisation if you can see the code. And the way the signal apps are built you don’t need to even see the source of the server because you can verify that everything is properly encrypted in the client.

      • poVoq@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 years ago

        That’s very naive. There are many ways of obfuscate the code to hide stuff in plain sight and you can’t know what is done with the metadata on the centralized servers (content might be encrypted, but it is anyways more interesting for surveillance who you talk to and when, then the actual content of your messages).

      • bunkrra@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 years ago

        signal is not anymore open source, u know shit about what is there and the fact that its crypted by client its just thw way how to make it look transparent.

  • Amicese@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    I think Privacy is difficult to implement in a governed country; states will likely want some sensitive data to carry out operations (internal, civil, and global). Surveillance and tracking are tools for control, because they can retrieve hidden data. States usually want control, so they typically employ surveillance.

    I think privacy will only be fully supported in an anarchist country; the lack of hierarchies (and states) mean privacy can flourish; because there is no power that can involuntarily control the people; so there is no involuntary control.