I don't think it's a good idea to listen to anything about privacy from people who fight with third-party clients and who prefer to use the phone numbers as identifiers.
@dump_stack I don't think it's good to mix total privacy with easily available privacy.
Privacy is almost always the opposite of convenience.
For wide-spread solution which could be used by anyone it would be better to talk about acceptable level of privacy.
I'm not defending Signal at all but I understand why they using phone numbers.
I also think that it's better not to use Ad Hominem to ignore anything that was said. It would be better to listen and then criticize what's really wrong.
@skobkin, it's not Ad Hominem to judge people by their actions. Signal is not in F-Droid just because of Moxie.
Fighting with third-party clients and trying to sue other messengers who create a protocol on top of Axolotl is also not an increasing "acceptable level of privacy".
And yes, there are messengers without requirements to the phone numbers that are easy to use.
@dump_stack I'm not familiar with Signal. But from my POV I don't support fighting with 3rd party clients too.
Yes. There are messengers without phone number. But average user is much more likely to loose access to such account than if it's bound to their IRL phone number.
It makes messenger less private against government attacks but also more reliable for the user. For the average user always having access to his contacts is likely more important than having more privacy.
@skobkin, messengers can still have a phone number as an identifier for people who want to use it (and for those whom it's more convenient), but at the same time provide the ability to register without it.
Last time, when I've talked with a someone, there was this dialogue:
Me: Can you give your Signal? To ask some questions later.
XX: No, sorry, I don't want to share my phone number.
Me: Do you have a Wire?
*XX shows me his nickname in Wire*
It's not to promote Wire, but an example.
@dump_stack It's good. Telegram also allows to share only username even when registration uses the phone number.
I don't use Signal and don't know how it works. But if it's as you say and you must share your phone number to add a contact it's not good.
If you were talking not about what's used to register but what's used to add a contact then I'm fully sharing your concerns.
But still we need to go with facts when discussing their post. Even if they're not so private they can give useful info.
@skobkin, Facebook also allows sharing the only username even when registration uses the phone number.
Please, do not talk about Telegram in the context of privacy. It can fool people to use Facebook-like solutions for something important.
@dump_stack I'm not talking about TOTAL privacy. I'm talking about RELATIVE privacy in special cases. AFAIK Signal is better is case of 1:1 chats. But looks like it's worse in keeping your phone number private.
@skobkin, me neither. I just pointed out that Telegram from the technical point of view is exactly the same in terms of privacy as Facebook and Skype.
So it's why It's strange to hear about Telegram in the privacy-related talk :-)
@dump_stack I was talking about sharing your phone number with someone.
If we were speaking about e2e encrypted chats Telegram would suck because you can't even use them on some of the official clients like telegram-desktop (Qt, crossplatform) when at the same time native Mac OS X client can use encrypted chats.
It also doesn't use encrypted chats by default. So yes, it's not so private.
But it's still not so bad and can be used in some cases when you don't need high class privacy.
@skobkin, Facebook Messenger uses the same approach (yes, there's also optional end-to-end encrypted chats based on Axolotl (Signal Protocol)).
Can you say also that Facebook is still not so bad and can be used when you don't heed high-class privacy?
I'm just trying to get why people have a different trust to exactly the same tech, with the difference in marketing only.
Funny enough, but because Facebook uses Axolotl it looks even better, lol.
@dump_stack Yes, I can say that if I know what I want from privacy.
But average user most likely don't even understand why they might need some privacy.
@skobkin, yes, that's the problem that I fully agree with.
We need to educate people on what privacy is and how to achieve it without consequences on their user experience.
@dump_stack True. If it'll make their experience worse, they'll just not listen.
That's what making it so hard from technical, UI/UX design and social points of view.
> Even if they're not so private they can give useful info.
Yes, but we should be careful if it looks like real privacy is not the goal.
@dump_stack Totally agree.
lor.sh is yet another mastodon instance.