Attached: 1 image
Basically, a good way to never trust "it's okay, the data is anonymized" again is simply knowing what the "Hemisphere Program" is.
https://www.eff.org/cases/hemisphere
In short, the US government got access to number from, number to, datetime, length and sometimes location information for every call passing through AT&T's network from 1987 to today.
Then they ran an algorithm to de-anonymize every burner phone based on behavior. They did this because maybe some of those burners were used by drug dealers.
As an aside, I'm very much convinced that Signal's primary objective is to gather phone numbers in order to facilitate the US government tracing social networks of people who are already of interest Their main focus isn't on what these people are discussing, they want to know who is talking to whom first and foremost. Signal's subpar user experience is a feature from this perspective. Due to its inconvenience for the average person, those with a strong need or desire to communicate sensitive information are more likely to utilize it.
I'm just pointing out the obvious reason why the US would be promoting the use of Signal so aggressively. Molly doesn't address the problem of having to go through a central server located in US to use Signal. The only way to address it would be to host your own server for yourself and your friends, but at that point you don't actually need Signal in the first palce.
You haven't answered my core questions. You seem to be suggesting there's a centralized or concerted push to promote/market Signal rather than an assortment of disconnected posts and articles. I'm open to that possibility, but what's the evidence?
The evidence is that a lot of prominent people in tech, influencers if you like, incessantly promote Signal, and anybody pointing out problems with it gets immediately mobbed. I don't have definitive proof for you, if that's what you're asking, but it's certainly a weird situation that I haven't seen happening with other messaging platforms. I find it odd to say the least.
As an aside, I'm very much convinced that Signal's primary objective is to gather phone numbers in order to facilitate the US government tracing social networks of people who are already of interest Their main focus isn't on what these people are discussing, they want to know who is talking to whom first and foremost. Signal's subpar user experience is a feature from this perspective. Due to its inconvenience for the average person, those with a strong need or desire to communicate sensitive information are more likely to utilize it.
Do you have evidence? And what do you think of the Molly fork?
I'm just pointing out the obvious reason why the US would be promoting the use of Signal so aggressively. Molly doesn't address the problem of having to go through a central server located in US to use Signal. The only way to address it would be to host your own server for yourself and your friends, but at that point you don't actually need Signal in the first palce.
Where is it being promoted/marketed? I haven't seen that. I'm only aware of Signal because of tech news and privacy threads.
Tech news and privacy threads is precisely what influence the demographic using Signal. And now it's become a cult.
You haven't answered my core questions. You seem to be suggesting there's a centralized or concerted push to promote/market Signal rather than an assortment of disconnected posts and articles. I'm open to that possibility, but what's the evidence?
The evidence is that a lot of prominent people in tech, influencers if you like, incessantly promote Signal, and anybody pointing out problems with it gets immediately mobbed. I don't have definitive proof for you, if that's what you're asking, but it's certainly a weird situation that I haven't seen happening with other messaging platforms. I find it odd to say the least.