|
| ▲ | hgoel a minute ago | parent | next [-] |
| Ahh okay, that makes more sense! Sorry for the snark. |
|
| ▲ | maqp 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Signal isn't anonymous. The server has access to your IP addresses and the server can at will build social graphs about the users. Where Signal's safety in numbers happens is in normalization of end-to-end encryption. Users who want to protect their message content are not standing out from the rest, unlike in e.g. Telegram where the vendor sees with whom you enable secret chats. |
| |
| ▲ | mmooss 11 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > The server has access to your IP addresses and the server can at will build social graphs about the users. How could it build a social graph? I think most messages are P2P unless the user activates relaying? | | |
| ▲ | fwn 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It is a hard problem, worth making some trade-offs. Signal published a good blog post about this, including this passage: > In order to turn the address book on a device into a social graph for Signal, the Signal client needs to be able to determine which of the device’s contacts are Signal users. [...] The obvious problem with this method is that the hash of a user identifier can almost always be inverted. [...] This method of contact discovery isn’t ideal because of these shortcomings, but at the very least the Signal service’s design does not depend on knowledge of a user’s social graph in order to function. Src.: https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/ |
|
|
|
| ▲ | fwn an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| (Not to object the degoogeling, but:) To create a Signal account, you have to validate a phone number. So Signal is currently largly about privacy, not anonymity. FWIW I wouldn't know why to message someone if I didn't know who they were. The same goes for them not knowing who I am. What would we even talk about? |
