all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 39 points 2 years ago

Signal blog post on the topic, with instructions and links to join the beta: https://signal.org/blog/phone-number-privacy-usernames/

  • source
  • [–] 36 points 2 years ago

    Awesome! I love Signal and the lack of usernames has always been one of it's bigger downsides, especially when comparing against other messaging apps.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Can LEO tie a username to a phone number?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    From Signal's blog footnotes:

    Usernames in Signal are protected using a custom Ristretto 25519 hashing algorithm and zero-knowledge proofs. Signal can’t easily see or produce the username if given the phone number of a Signal account. Note that if provided with the plaintext of a username known to be in use, Signal can connect that username to the Signal account that the username is currently associated with. However, once a username has been changed or deleted, it can no longer be associated with a Signal account. 

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    So do I still need to provide a phone number when I sign up?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    you will still need a phone number to sign up for Signal

    From signals official blog, yes you do

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago
    [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Careful though. Maybe not as "private" as you may think... a thread from @sc00bz@infosec.exchange - https://infosec.exchange/@sc00bz/111966928032512918

  • source
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I see this as both a win and a problem:

    As soon as you take away a hard link to a real-life identifier, the sketchy people come out of the woodwork and spread images of child exploitation.

    Signal has not had this problem like some platforms (e.g. Kik), and I suspect two reasons:

    1. Lack of searchable chat rooms
    2. Concrete link to a phone number that anyone who contacts you must know (and make it easy to identify you to authorities)

    Up until now signal has been an excellent secure replacement for text messaging between parties that know each other. I hope they don’t go the “chat groups” route, though I doubt they will. But I suspect this change will make it a preferred way for abusers to exchange images and videos nearly anonymously.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The implication is that a phone number is still required, you just no longer have to share that with the people you communicate with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago

    Their blog post says explicitly that phone number is still required for sign-up and that usernames are purely meant as an avenue to message new people without sharing your phone number. Your username isn't even visible to anyone but you and you can change it whenever you want.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I think this all comes down to how you separate the medium of communication and the content. Nobody cares that you can send encrypted emails between people on any server in the world. Or place encrypted files on any number on free cloud storage solutions. End to end encrypted communication between anonymous parties is fairly easily achieved if you just think about it a little. We don't hold those systems liable for the content they transmit unknowingly, either legally or in public opinion.

    Why is it different for chat services? Have we just become conditioned because Facebook, Twitter, etc decided they needed to police their networks?

  • source
  • parent