> They’re calling it "opt-in," but it doesn't look like that's actually true? You can’t know whether someone you’re talking to -- who may not understand the implications -- has enabled it. In group chats, it looks like a single person turning it on eliminates signal protocol for everyone in the chat.

People already can export backups of the messages they receive, in plain text, and publish those on the Internet if they way.

Signal's threat model has never included "you are directly messaging an adversarial party and expect to retain control over redistribution of those messages".

▲

3np 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Signal's threat model has never included "you are directly messaging an adversarial party and expect to retain control over redistribution of those messages".

On the contrary.

https://signal.org/blog/signal-doesnt-recall/?pubDate=202508...

	▲	chimeracoder 7 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> On the contrary Well, no, that doesn't contradict what I said at all. That link isn't about treating the recipient of your messages as an adversarial actor. The recipient can still choose to enable it, if they want to provide Microsoft access to the messages they receive.
	▲	x0x0 7 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Huh? That is very explicitly about preventing the migration of your signal messages into Windows Recall. Not the threat model you discuss.

▲

elvisloops 7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think the difference is that this is all happening in the app as a supported flow. If simply enabling a toggle in Signal (likely without understanding the implications) is now considered "adversarial," then I think that's a problem