I remember a time when visiting a website that opens a javacript dialog box asking for your name so the message “hi <name entered>” could be displayed was baulked at.

Why does signal want a phone number to register? Is there a better alternative?

  • FreeWilliam@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Jami.net

    Ignore the comment saying signal is “end to end encrypted” “private” etc They are simply stuck in a delusional state where they try to convince themselves that signal is the best option so they can continue using it. Nothing is private if it isn’t fully libre because you never know what the proprietary code is doing. The signal protocol itself has its source code released, and the encryption and security code is publicly available, but the signal Foundation has stated that it uses both free code and proprietary code. Their reason is UI, but it’s hard to make sure whatever proprietary code is being used for because you simply can’t see it. As GNU puts it: “You’re walking in a pitch black cave”. Jami is fully libre and is a GNU project. You don’t even need any phone number!

    • rirus@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Molly.im is a Signal Client fork with Security enhancements and the possibility to install a version with only free software.

      • FreeWilliam@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        Great, but it relies on signal’s servers, so it’s centralised. Also, Moly merely removes proprietary parts from Signal, but that’s a workaround (same thing for linux-libre kernel, it’s free software, but just a workaround which is why I’m looking to help with HyprbolaBSD). I’m not coming here to say Molly isn’t an improvement, but being centralised and relying on a non-tully-free program’s servers is a huge red flag for me :)

        • coconut@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          19 hours ago

          It doesn’t matter whether a server claims to run free software or not. You can’t verify what it’s running. That’s why E2EE is designed entirely around the client. You can’t trust the server no matter what.

          • Autonomous User@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            13 hours ago

            Did anyone say that was the problem? It will not matter how encrypted your messages are when the centralised service gets easily banned.

    • MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      You can easily verify the keys of the person you’re speaking with, and they’re generated locally… so technically speaking, even if their servers are leaking, your messages are still unreadable, but yea that’s not ideal

        • MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          ? Even if the servers are backdoored, your messages are still encrypted by your key - as long as the server didn’t manipulate the keys at the first exchange, which you can check by verifying the security code

          If it matches, then it’s okay. Such features exist in all encrypted messenger apps

    • solrize@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Jami, as much as I prefer it on various philosophical grounds, simply doesn’t work very well at the moment. :(

        • solrize@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Yeah I’m on their Discourse forum, but the situation isn’t that great, and it’s unclear to me if the problems are fixable. Particularly when there are incompatibilities between version X and version Y, where both versions are already in the wild. You can’t travel backwards in time to fix those versions, and this (like email clients or telephones) is an application area where you can’t tell people to update their clients all the time. You have to keep things interoperable.

          It’s also often inconvenient to reproduce bugs like that in order to diagnose them. If you try to talk to someone over Jami and it doesn’t work, you generally can’t borrow their phone to analyze the issue. If you’re one of the core developers, maybe you have access to a room full of different kinds of phones and OS versions to test with, but a typical user/contributor won’t have anything like that.

          • FreeWilliam@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Yeah, this is just the reality of unpaid free software developers, they don’t have the recourses to work on every single bug as quick as a paid developer, but that doesn’t justify not reporting bugs and working with the developers to fix them. Like you said, Jami is grest ethically so why not make it great function? Also, don’t you have a computer and a phone? Test on those. I don’t own a phone, so I can’t test the phone, but I do gladly test on my laptop.