this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
67 points (98.6% liked)

Privacy

32654 readers
333 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ulrich@feddit.org -2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Metadata is understood to be data that's associated with messages being sent

That's incorrect. Metadata is literally "data about the data". There is not data associated with the phone number (data). The fact that you don't even understand this shows that you have no business making uninformed comments on this subject.

One has to be an incredibly gullible individual to actually believe this.

No, one just needs a rudimentary understanding of how encryption works. Actually looking at the subpoenas sent from Signal is helpful, though.

Anybody with a functioning brain can understand that this graph is highly valuable to intelligence agencies in the US

Anybody who actually pays attention can see that there is no graph. A graph has interconnected points. There are no connections in Signal.

Your entire argument is based on wild hypotheticals and conspiracy theories and you have zero evidence of anything nefarious, or you would have provided it already.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

That’s incorrect. Metadata is literally “data about the data”.

Yes, the phone number is data about the user sending the message. Let me know if you need me to use smaller words to explain this to you.

No, one just needs a rudimentary understanding of how encryption works. Actually looking at the subpoenas sent from Signal is helpful, though.

This has nothing to do with encryption. The phone number is being handed over by the user to the server. You're making it very clear that have absolutely no clue regarding the subject you're attempting to debate here.

Anybody who actually pays attention can see that there is no graph. A graph has interconnected points. There are no connections in Signal.

Signal server has to keep a graph of connections between the accounts in order to route messages between them. The messages are not delivered peer to peer.

Your entire argument is based on wild hypotheticals and conspiracy theories and you have zero evidence of anything nefarious, or you would have provided it already.

No, my entire argument is based on basic security practices that anybody who's ever dealt with security would understand. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org -2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

the phone number is data about the user sending the message

No it isn't. If someone gets information associated with that phone number, they get it from somewhere else, not Signal. Let me know if you need me to use smaller words to explain this to you.

Signal server has to keep a graph of connections between the accounts in order to route messages between them.

No it doesn't. You're making it very clear that have absolutely no clue regarding the subject you're attempting to debate here.

No, my entire argument is based on basic security practices that anybody who's ever dealt with security would understand.

No it isn't. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

If someone gets information associated with that phone number, they get it from somewhere else, not Signal.

Unless you're in a position to audit what the Signal server does with that data, which you're not, then you're just spewing nonsense here. You do not know what the server does with the information it collects.

No it doesn’t. You’re making it very clear that have absolutely no clue regarding the subject you’re attempting to debate here.

You are in no position to make that claim because you do not know what the server is doing with that data. The fact that you keep repeating this nonsense over and over isn't going to make it true baby Goebbels.

No it isn’t. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

The fact that you don't understand that security isn't based on trust, clearly shows who's actually embarrassing themselves.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org -2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Unless you're in a position to audit what the Signal server does with that data, which you're not

I don't have to be. Lots of people, public and private, who are far more knowledgeable than me, already have. You're assuming they're doing something nefarious but you have zero evidence to back that up. You're just spewing nonsense here. The fact that you keep repeating this nonsense over and over isn't going to make it true baby Goebbels.

The fact that you don't understand there is no trust, clearly shows who's actually embarrassing themselves.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 hours ago

I don’t have to be. Lots of people, public and private, who are far more knowledgeable than me, already have.

Literally nobody outside Whisper has access to the server, and therefore nobody outside Whisper knows what the server does. The fact that you don't understand this basic fact is frankly embarrassing.

You’re assuming they’re doing something nefarious but you have zero evidence to back that up.

As I've repeatedly explained to you in this thread, security cannot be based on trust. If data is available to an attacker then the system has to be assumed to be compromised. If you understood first thing about security you'd understand that this is a fundamental point.

The fact that you just keep regurgitating back what I write to you shows that you have all the intellectual capacity of a chat bot.