• Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    “Without end-to-end encryption, huge numbers of vulnerable targets, and servers located in the UAE? Seems like that would be a security nightmare,” Matthew Green, a cryptography expert at Johns Hopkins University, told TechCrunch. (Telegram spokesperson Remi Vaughn disputed this, saying it has no data centers in the UAE.)

    good job Remi, that was the main concern lmao

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        Signal sucks from a UI/UX standpoint, when they dropped SMS support I lost any ability to convince people to switch, and everyone who had already switched left.

        Then there’s the seamless switching between devices…which it doesn’t do.

        • Hellmo_luciferrari@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          Using SMS through signal defeats the purpose of signal…

          The UI is fine, what more do you expect out of it? It has a list of chats, a menu button with menu options, like it’s a messaging app not a social media platform akin to discord or telegram.

        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          I’m a signal donor and while I disagree with your point regarding UI (have you used in the past couple of years? It’s went from feeling dated to feeling pretty modern), I agree with the rest.

          Even worse, though, is that the EU offered them the opportunity to become relevant on a silver platter, by forcing WhatsApp to open up their app and be cross-platform with others who want to. Signal said no thanks.

          I get it, WhatsApp stores metadata, and Signal doesn’t like that. But they were fine with (way way worse) SMS for a while? The day Signal chose that path was the day Signal willingly chose to be irrelevant for the vast vast vast majority of people.

          I love this app but the way the project is managed baffles me sometimes.

          • pandapoo@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            … agreeing to be directly compatible with Whatsapp would mean they agree to surrender the privacy for every single instance of Signal-WhatsApp communication.

            If the whole reason for your foundations existence is privacy, it seems that it would be an existential danger to create a partnership with the implicit understanding that it will destroy privacy.

            • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Some level of privacy, yes. Solely in WhatsApp-signal chats. And users can be notified of that, like they were with SMS.

              But you know what the alternative is? Nobody using signal. And that’s objectively worse.

              Cross-compatibility with WhatsApp would mean way more people on signal, and way more people willing to try, meaning more signal-signal chats.

              Signal-SMS is FAR less private, but they were fine with that for years.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      The uae is a huge concern. Their terms demand they get to see your code. When the vPBX company I worked for tried to get into the uae, it was a 10mil boondoggle that ended up ruining them.