I remember a time when visiting a website that opens a javacript dialog box asking for your name so the message “hi <name entered>” could be displayed was baulked at.

Why does signal want a phone number to register? Is there a better alternative?

  • FreeWilliam@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Jami.net

    Ignore the comment saying signal is “end to end encrypted” “private” etc They are simply stuck in a delusional state where they try to convince themselves that signal is the best option so they can continue using it. Nothing is private if it isn’t fully libre because you never know what the proprietary code is doing. The signal protocol itself has its source code released, and the encryption and security code is publicly available, but the signal Foundation has stated that it uses both free code and proprietary code. Their reason is UI, but it’s hard to make sure whatever proprietary code is being used for because you simply can’t see it. As GNU puts it: “You’re walking in a pitch black cave”. Jami is fully libre and is a GNU project. You don’t even need any phone number!

    • rirus@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Molly.im is a Signal Client fork with Security enhancements and the possibility to install a version with only free software.

      • FreeWilliam@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Great, but it relies on signal’s servers, so it’s centralised. Also, Moly merely removes proprietary parts from Signal, but that’s a workaround (same thing for linux-libre kernel, it’s free software, but just a workaround which is why I’m looking to help with HyprbolaBSD). I’m not coming here to say Molly isn’t an improvement, but being centralised and relying on a non-tully-free program’s servers is a huge red flag for me :)

    • MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      23 hours ago

      You can easily verify the keys of the person you’re speaking with, and they’re generated locally… so technically speaking, even if their servers are leaking, your messages are still unreadable, but yea that’s not ideal

        • MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          ? Even if the servers are backdoored, your messages are still encrypted by your key - as long as the server didn’t manipulate the keys at the first exchange, which you can check by verifying the security code

          If it matches, then it’s okay. Such features exist in all encrypted messenger apps

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      You should have visited Signal’s github page first, I dunno. Before talking. Made up a lot of stuff.

      They do have proprietary code for that crypto wallet they have there, well hidden, and for, eh, phone number registration, but other than that module it’s all released, I think.

      The server and the client applications are FOSS. You can host it for yourself, patching out the domain names and registration parts the way you like it more.

      • rirus@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        They also have Google Play Libraries included for Push Notifications and Maps.

      • FreeWilliam@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        That’s not the full picture. That’s exactly the problem I was highlighting. The issue isn’t whether some of the code is “FOSS”, it’s about whether all of it is. If even small parts remain proprietary (as you mentioned), then we can’t verify what those parts are doing. And those parts could theoretically significantly affect the data collection. Also, I didn’t make up a lot of stuff. The Signal Foundation themselves have confirmed that certain UI and build components are not fully libre. As the GNU project puts it, if part of your system is closed, then you’re trusting a black box, no matter how well-lit the rest of it is.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Signal protocol guarantees that what’s on the server we can discard in your suspicions, it doesn’t matter, because you are not trusting it.

          The client is fully open.

          • FreeWilliam@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            53 minutes ago

            If it’s not fully free, I don’t trust it. I don’t understand how someone in a privacy community doesn’t understand how much a few lines of code can track someone so easily no matter how much of the program is free software.

          • rirus@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 hours ago

            You are trusting the server, or do you verify the fingerprint of EVERY contact of yours? The normal people don’t, as Signals UI purpusfully doesn’t encourages it.

      • phx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        24 hours ago

        I didn’t actually know the server code was published. It’d be cool if the client allowed multiple servers so you could talk to people on the “normal” master while also thing a private instance

          • rirus@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 hours ago

            They had it implemented but discarded it out of stupid centralization ideology. Moxie said it on a Chaos communication Congress presentation he held but which he didn’t wanted to be recorded, as the stuff he said was stupid and wrong.

    • solrize@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Jami, as much as I prefer it on various philosophical grounds, simply doesn’t work very well at the moment. :(

        • solrize@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          Yeah I’m on their Discourse forum, but the situation isn’t that great, and it’s unclear to me if the problems are fixable. Particularly when there are incompatibilities between version X and version Y, where both versions are already in the wild. You can’t travel backwards in time to fix those versions, and this (like email clients or telephones) is an application area where you can’t tell people to update their clients all the time. You have to keep things interoperable.

          It’s also often inconvenient to reproduce bugs like that in order to diagnose them. If you try to talk to someone over Jami and it doesn’t work, you generally can’t borrow their phone to analyze the issue. If you’re one of the core developers, maybe you have access to a room full of different kinds of phones and OS versions to test with, but a typical user/contributor won’t have anything like that.

          • FreeWilliam@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Yeah, this is just the reality of unpaid free software developers, they don’t have the recourses to work on every single bug as quick as a paid developer, but that doesn’t justify not reporting bugs and working with the developers to fix them. Like you said, Jami is grest ethically so why not make it great function? Also, don’t you have a computer and a phone? Test on those. I don’t own a phone, so I can’t test the phone, but I do gladly test on my laptop.