top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 302 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Signal CEO Whittaker said that in the worst case scenario, they would work with partners and the community to see if they could find ways to circumvent these rules. Signal also did this when the app was blocked in Russia or Iran. "But ultimately, we would leave the market before we had to comply with dangerous laws like these."

This is why we need the ability to sideload apps.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 109 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    That means nothing when the servers stop taking EU traffic. I get your point, but the real solution here is putting a bullet (double tap) in Chat Control, once and for all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    putting a bullet (double tap) in Chat Control,

    Yes, please.

    once and for all.

    LOL, no. They'll come back again with some other bullshit to Save the Children!™, it's a never-ending whack-a-mole.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    That means nothing when the servers stop taking EU traffic

    I don’t use any of these apps, so I’m not quite sure how they work. But couldn’t you just make an app that keeps a local private and public key pair. Then when you send a message (say via regular sms) it includes under the hood your public key. Then the receiver when they reply uses your public key to encrypt the message before sending to you?

    Unless the sms infrastructure is going to attempt to detect and reject encrypted content, this seems like it can be achieved without relying on a server backend.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    That is how the signal protocol works, it's end to end encrypted with the keys only known between the two ends.

    The issue is that servers are needed to relay the connections (they only hold public keys) because your phone doesn't have a static public IP that can reliably be communicated to. The servers are needed to communicate with people as they switch networks constantly throughout the day. And they can block traffic to the relay servers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 91 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    I have become convinced by Cory Doctorow's (tech writer and inventor of the term "enshittification") argument that the fact that we're even discussing this in terms of "sideloading" is a massive win for tech companies. We used to just call that "installing software" but now for some reason because it's on a phone it's something completely weird and different that needs a different term. It's completely absurd to me that we as a society have become so accustomed to not being able to control our own devices, to the point of even debating whether or not we should be allowed to install our own software on our own computers "for safety." It should be blatantly obvious that this is all just corporate greed and yet the general public can't or refuses to see it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago

    There are groups to support:

    And in the UK:

    Some political groups are better than others, but most politicians are clueless.

    The key is to get muggles to understand we are living in Technofeudalism and why being digital serfs is bad. The problem is ineffective competition law and that monopolies are bad. That monopolies and standards are not the same thing. I have no idea how. Most people are just naturally compliant and unquestioning of something seemingly so abstract.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 98 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Haha! Do it if the EU does not give up on their Orwellian control!

    Wait, I'm in the EU and I use Signal!

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 76 points 10 months ago* (7 children)

    Basically, but what you forget is that Signal is also the standard for every Politician for their group chats because it's secure, so the idea that they might lose their secure, leak-free* form of communication should worry MEPs and other politicians into taking action. Will it? I don't know, politicians are very stupid when it comes to tech it seems.

    * Baring screenshots

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] 78 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I hope more follow, would be funny if "all chat apps have to include a back door" leads to "there are no official chat apps"

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    If the law is implemented, I would selfhost my own chat server. I don't see this as Signal fault.

    But everybody can`t selfhost. That is a problem I am struggling with.

    I am now sure what I would do about email, I assume it is affected as well?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago

    I already self host my own matrix server. Everybody can't do that, but everybody can use someone's matrix server. They can't shut it down because it's decentralised and federated. It would theoretically be illegal to use but I don't see how they would be able to stop it.

    Email with PGP would then also be illegal but impossible to effectively stop. That's why the whole discussion is so stupid. It only hurts the normies. Criminals and tech savvy people will find a way around it and still use encryption without mandated backdoors.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 18 points 10 months ago

    I hate this framing. They don't "THREATEN" to leave europe.

    Europe is about to change laws that makes their product illegal.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Separate airgapped device running an encryption app. Type text on it, it spits out a ciphertext, then, use internet connected device to scan the ciphertext, OCR*, then send to target receipient, they also use this same airgap encryption device and they OCR, then decrypt using their key.

    *Instead of OCR, you could also use a QR code to have error correction

    Tell me how they can ban this? Anyone using a raspberry pi with a battery and touch display attached into one compact thing, is a criminal?

    What if we just start using One Time Pad? Can they ban that?

    Steganography?

    Like seriously, how do you even stop "criminals" using steganography?

    So, to Big Gov, here's my question: Are you gonna ban talking to other people becuause criminals also talk to other people?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago

    They don't care about your messages, they don't care about terrorists or pedophiles.

    They do care about the general population, and wants to control it. That's what this is all about. The hard right wants to have effective tools to slam down on dissent when they get in power.

    A game as old as humanity.

    Shameless plug, because I'm trying to do my part ☺️ : Tenfingers sharing

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›