Like Signal users. The only thing it signals is that the user is interesting. There is also a reason why it is not allowed for classified use.

▲

const_cast 6 days ago | parent [-]

This isn't true, this is the sort of toxic "if I have nothing to hide then why value privacy" ideology that got us into this privacy nightmare.

Every single person has "something to hide", and that's normal. It's normal to not want your messages snooped through. It doesn't mean you're a criminal, or even computer-saavy.

▲

rvnx 6 days ago | parent [-]

Mhhh it is not really about “nothing to hide”, it was more that if you use niche services targeted at privacy, it puts a big target on you.

Like the Casio watches, travelling to Syria, using Tor, Protonmail, etc…

When it is better in reality to have a regular watch, a Gmail with encrypted .zip files or whatever, etc.

It does not mean you are a criminal if you have that Casio watch, but if you have this, plus encrypted emails, plus travel to some countries as a tourist, you are almost certain to put yourself in trouble for nothing, while you tried to protect yourself.

And if you are a criminal, you will put yourself in trouble too, also for nothing, while you tried to protect yourself.

This was the basis of Xkeyscore, and all of that to say that Signal is one very good signal that the person may be interesting.

▲

const_cast 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

1. I don't really think this is true generally.

2. Using a secure, but niche, service is still more secure than using a service with no privacy.

Sure, you can argue using Signal puts a "target" on your back. But there's nothing to target, right? Because it's not being run by Google or Meta. What are they gonna take? There's no data to leak about you.

If I were a criminal, which I'm not, I'd rather rob a bank with an actual gun than with a squirt gun. Even though having an actual gun puts a bigger target on your back. Because the actual gun works - the squirt gun is just kinda... useless.

	▲	latentsea 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		>If I were a criminal, which I'm not, I'd rather rob a bank with an actual gun than with a squirt gun. Even though having an actual gun puts a bigger target on your back. Because the actual gun works - the squirt gun is just kinda... useless Actually, there was a case... I can't recall but it might have been in Argentina, where the robbers did explicitly use fake guns when robbing the banks because doing so still actually worked for the purposes of the robbery, and it also reduced their legal liability.

▲

bigprof 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

What flag does using a Casio watch raise? I have a G Shock that i love though i don't wear it as often nowadays.

▲

1986 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

It could put you in Guantanamo Bay: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casio_F-91W#Usage_in_terrori...

▲

Mogzol 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The F-91W has long been associated with terrorism for it's use in improvised time-bombs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casio_F-91W#Usage_in_terrorism

▲

spookie 6 days ago | parent [-]

Oh so now we target people for buying inexpensive things? "Oh no! This guy doesn't have a $500 watch".

	▲	Mogzol 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, I think it's pretty stupid, especially considering the F91-W is one of the most common and best selling watches in the world.