Nowadays, a majority of apps require you to sign up with your email or even worse your phone number. If you have a phone number attached to your name, meaning you went to a cell service/phone provider, and you gave them your ID, then no matter what app you use, no matter how private it says it is, it is not private. There is NO exception to this. Your identity is instantly tied to that account.
Signal is not private. I recommend Simplex or another peer to peer onion messaging app. They don’t require email or phone number. So as long as you protect your IP you are anonymous
Signal is private, what you should differentiate is being anonymous or not. Using your usual phone number is NOT Anonymous but is PRIVATE, as in the content of your messages being only available to you and the person you’re talking to
The way you get a phone number depends on you too, so you can be very much be Anonymous even if signal requires a phone number.
the phone number drives me nut since mine changes every few months; everyone i know has my voip number that gets everything forwarded to each new number.
You are very naive if you think that a company located un the US can provide an encrypted messaging service that can be used by anyone including terrorists, druglords and US enemies without the government being able to access the messages. Lavabit was a famous case and had to shutdown because its founder rejected to comply with an order from the US government to grant access to information. If you are using centralized communication service located in the US forget about privacy.
”Lavabit is believed to be the first technology firm that has chosen to suspend or shut down its operation rather than comply with an order from the United States government to reveal information or grant access to information.[3] Silent Circle, an encrypted email, mobile video and voice service provider, followed the example of Lavabit by discontinuing its encrypted email services.[25] Citing the impossibility of being able to maintain the confidentiality of its customers’ emails should it be served with government orders, Silent Circle permanently erased the encryption keys that allowed access to emails stored or transmitted by its service.[26]"
“Levison (founder) explained he was under a gag order and that he was legally unable to explain to the public why he ended the service.[21]”
People who actually care about privacy: the quality or state of being apart from company or observation (definition), wouldn’t want a company knowing their phone number and thus identity tied to their phone number. Maybe you believe in a lower level of privacy than I do. That’s fine but my post was for people who never thought about it but will care and those who should care.
This thread shows the success of Signal’s PR campaigns, and how a shiny app can get people to overlook all the privacy concerns. They’re just as successful as Apple at getting people to think that a US-based corporation hosted on Amazon’s servers and subject to national security letters, whose privacy model is “just trust us with your phone number”, is in any way secure.
precisely that’s why it’s become so popular and recommended and now these users are recommending it furthering the amount of people that will have their data exposed there was a leak I believe in 2022 and on signal a lot of customers had their phone numbers exposed if their phone numbers are not stored how did they get exposed? Clearly the answer is that they are stored.
Thank you! Finally someone that also sees Signal as privacy invasing!
I am a huge fan of SimpleX and their removal of user IDs. I think it’s a brilliant solution, and wish that SimpleX was recommended more than Signal.
If simplex used phone numbers and defeated the whole concept of privacy it would be recommended more.
Started to write a long paragraph to explain the difference between privacy and anonymity but I now believe this new user is (no idea why) collecting engagement via rage bait. I won’t participate in their posts anymore.
It might even come from a good place, namely trying to always do “better” and be “more private” but in practice it’s just lead to confusion.
2FA is an important security layer, if the service, after sending you the activating SMS with the code, delete your number (normal in serious services), it’s also not an privacy problem. In big us corporations on the other hand, it is, eg.Google store tour number and also probably share it, there 2FA is not an option. Instead a number, some services also admit alternatively a second e-mail account to receive the activation code, there, if you have doubt, you can use an disposable mail, so there isn’t any privacy problem.
2FA helps with security concerns, not privacy concerns. They still would have your number. Also about Google, they have one of the widest spread and utilized 2FA authentication applications out there.
Yes, phone number should be optional for easy contact discovery, not mandatory. As Threema. You have to provide your ID when buying a sim card.
Not only that, but self-hosting should be an option. It isn’t with signal, which is based and hosted in the US, on amazon servers, and subject to national security letters .
People dont realize that you may as well hand over your social security number when you pass out your phone number.
Indeed, I also don’t realize that. Please explain further.
Its very easy to dox someone with a phone number. Not sure about social but address and full name are easily available for free.
Be specific: what does Signal divilge about me to outsiders besides “I have used Signal”?
Signal over the past few years has been exposed for having flaws in its security integrity. Even the president’s current administration has had a leak issue by using the platform, Signal.
Once again, they ask for your phone number. Anything they ask for your phone number, if your phone number is tied to your identity, can easily be revealed to reveal who you are.
The leak from the administration was because Pete Hegseth included a journalist in a discussion about sensitive war plans. Trying to blame that on Signal is deceptive on your part.
If you are saying that Signal does not offer anonymity then you are right. Anyone I message on there knows it’s me. But Signal is still keeping my messages safe from monitoring and third-party surveillance, to the best of my knowledge.
This is the core of the issue, and it’s wild how many people don’t get it.
Your phone number is metadata. And people who think metadata is “just” data or that cross-referencing is some kind of sci-fi nonsense, are fundamentally misunderstanding how modern surveillance works.
By requiring phone numbers, Signal, despite its good encryption, inherently builds a social graph. The server operators, or anyone who gets that data, can see a map of who is talking to whom. The content is secure, but the connections are not.
Being able to map out who talks to whom is incredibly valuable. A three-letter agency can take the map of connections and overlay it with all the other data they vacuum up from other sources, such as location data, purchase histories, social media activity. If you become a “person of interest” for any reason, they instantly have your entire social circle mapped out.
Worse, the act of seeking out encrypted communication is itself a red flag. It’s a perfect filter: “Show me everyone paranoid enough to use crypto.” You’re basically raising your hand.
So, in a twisted way, Signal being a tool for private conversations, makes it a perfect machine for mapping associations and identifying targets. The fact that it operates using a centralized server located in the US should worry people far more than it seems to.
The kicker is that thanks to gag orders, companies are legally forbidden from telling you if the feds come knocking for this data. So even if Signal’s intentions are pure, we’d never know how the data it collects is being used. The potential for abuse is baked right into the phone-number requirement.
Everyone you talk to and when you talked to them, with their real identities via phone numbers. Because signal is hosted in the US and subject to national security letters, you should assume the worst.
Are you talking about the client app, or about the service?
Much of what you said doesn’t apply to the service, which stores hashed phone numbers and first access / last access times and nothing else.
And the client does store these things, but also lets users delete messages and contacts. Your message deletions can propagate as well.
stores hashed phone numbers and first access / last access times and nothing else.
Even if this weren’t false (otherwise they wouldn’t be able to connect to your existing contacts), that’s a “just trust us” claim. You give them your phone number, you should assume they have it and not “trust them” to hash it like its a password.
And the client does store these things, but also lets users delete messages and contacts. Your message deletions can propagate as well.
Not that its that important, but its yet another just trust us claim.
You literally don’t understand how hashing works, got it. Please educate yourself on this topic. In short, “connecting your existing contacts” is ENTIRELY possible with hashed phone numbers; it’s not even complicated or tricky. To claim otherwise, as you just did, is nothing but trumpeting your own ignorance.
As for deleting (and propagating deletion of) messages, this is most definitely NOT a matter of “just trust us”. The client is open-source! We KNOW how it works. We KNOW that deletion propagates across devices when you tell it to. We KNOW that the service cannot see your unencrypted messages, and that the encrypted messages are made with AES so even quantum computers in the future can’t decrypt them. This is incredibly far from “just trust us”.
You can also get a phone number in a number of ways without it being connected to your identity. You can use voip services or buy a phone and a SIM in cash. I still think this is a good think to point out for all the people who use signal or other services with a phone number directly connected to their identity.
Depends where you live. I’m in Australia and phone companies aren’t allowed to activate a number without tying it to an ID. So criminals just use stolen IDs and regular people don’t get privacy. Also YMMV but virtually every service that needs phone verification won’t accept VoIP numbers anymore
If Signal isn’t private, then why it is recommended over WhatsApp, Matrix and over SimpleX?
No one should be recommending signal over matrix and simplex. It’s probably more secure than whatsapp, but both have social network graphs of everyone you talked to, and when.
Because it has become extremely popular, that’s just how it goes. At one point, even Telegram was recommended for being super secure or private, but the privacy is mild on Telegram at best.
But by comparison to Instagram or Whatsapp, it’s how the gram looks like Privacy Central, so it was recommended. Now, Signal is replacing that role.
Signal is more private than the sus apps like IG, Facebook, etc. Yes. But only because those apps are so bad.
I’m ready to be called milquetoast, and while I see where this comes from, it comes off idealistic if we are to communicate with people in the present day in any practical way. Do not forget how much of an improvement it already is over the likes of proprietary messaging apps and how much effort it already is to move people to Signal. It is surprisingly difficult for common folk to grasp the concept of anything but a phone number when it comes to messaging apps.
simplex is shady af and literally run by some sus crypto rugpull bums. best to use xmpp and irc. they have been existing for many years and still standing strong.
If you wanted to, you could put full control of your messages even on your own server by using Simplex. Of course, this comment you’re saying is a far cry from reality.
