• Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      And if they had implented that to begin with and used servers that kept no logs he wouldn’t have had anything of value to hand over and they would have had to release him since he physically could not provide those things.

      He built the damn situation for himself, and the fact that such issues weren’t considered practically screams “honeypot.”

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 days ago

        they would have had to release him

        Maybe we could say he wouldn’t be in this situation because he could’ve responded to every request his company got and they could’ve provided all of the zero logs they had.

        I believe Telegram just wasn’t cooperating at all which is wild! Such a Musk thing to do.

    • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 days ago

      Just keep in mind that any service that asks for a phone number can also disclose it.

      I hope what leaves the Signal client is a hash of your phone number, rather than the number itself. They might even be using salts and expensive-to-execute key derivation functions, to mitigate brute force searches (which are otherwise easy given the relatively small search space of phone numbers). But if compelled, it would be trivial for Signal to change that behavior.

    • melroy@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      5 days ago

      I also don’t trust Signal… And I won’t gonna switch a 4th time. I might as well switch to Matrix chat now.

        • kevincox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          That is a pretty weak argument. The issues are minor and in a library that people are moving off of to a better build and stronger validated library. Yes, it should have been like that in the first place, but the problem is minor and being addressed.

          I would look more to the various features of Matrix that aren’t encrypted like room names, topics, reactions, … and not to mention the oodles of unencrypted metadata. I really wouldn’t call Matrix a high-privacy system.

          I like Matrix and use it regularly, but it definitely doesn’t have a privacy-first mindset like Signal does. I’m hoping that this improves over time, but without a strong privacy first leadership it seems unlikely to happen.

          • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            There’s also SimpleX chat and Briar, but I’ve used both of those less than Matrix. They seem to be aiming to solve the last few issues that Matrix has, like usernames and metadata leakage.

            I consider Matrix to be closer to an “Enterprise” solution, like what a business or government or non-profit would use for secure communications (literally both French and German governments use Matrix), while SimpleX/Briar seem much more aimed at individuals just wanting control over their personal conversations.

    • Lucy :3@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      5 days ago

      Anyone who used Telegram as a private communications channel in the first place is an idiot.