zlacker

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but how exactly is that the case?

It's been damaging to their claims of transparency for almost a year now, if anything this should be the first step in repairing that slight. How is dumping a year's worth of private work into your public repo somehow doing damage to their trustworthiness?

>>_dibly+(OP)
You're right that the damage to trustworthiness was always there. (I.e. they did the damage when they stopped publishing their source code, and they compounded that damage the longer they declined to publish their code). My point was more that the damage now seems to be directly attributable to the new payments integration.

Prior to seeing this post, I was already concerned that adding a crypto/payments integration would damage the Signal project, and this appears to be an immediate example of the kind of harms/perverse incentives I was concerned about.

(A counterargument to my theory here would perhaps be "Signal was always doing stuff like declining to publish their server code even prior to the payments integration", I'm not familiar enough with the history of the project to know the details there.)

>>thepti+O2
Reading the other article on HN definitely helped me understand more. I think really it comes down to me not understanding why they had so much trustworthiness to begin with.

They've been obscuring their code for about a year and even then, it's not like Signal has always come out and said "we love the passion our fellow developers have for our commitment to privacy and security". They just let people sell their relatives on that promise and waited until they had a massive userbase to start monetizing their platform.

Thanks for your reply, I just wonder where all this trustworthiness has been coming from for the last 12 months while they've been quietly working on the platform without publishing any changes. It feels like a beta tester for a game being mad that there were lootboxes in the full release of the game when they weren't in the beta. Even if you didn't know they were coming, you had to assume something like it was inevitable given enough traction.

>>_dibly+26
Signal's choices never really felt right, as their justifications tended towards authoritarian paternalism - eg willfull reliance on Play services, keeping it out of F-Droid (which while flawed as Signal pointed out, seems to be the best we currently have), bottleneck centralized servers, and phone numbers as primary identifiers (?!).

But the standard Free Software development/distribution model does lack in some areas. And so Signal got a bunch of community leeway for going against the grain, in the hopes that a fresh approach would somehow bear fruit.

We're now apparently seeing some of the fruit from that approach.

>>_dibly+(OP)
For one security through obscurity is a thing. Depending on it as your primary "security measure" is stupid on all levels but being part of your security is not a bad thing. Before all someone could get would be your chat history. Other than police, jilted lovers, and state actors no one else gives a crap about that most likely unless you are targeted as an individual. Now by adding access to money that might be accessible via Signal adds more incentive for hackers to not try to hack something else and now make a beeline for Signal. Also it dilutes the efforts of the Signal developers efforts to make a better messaging app. Also crypto in and of itself is questionable, but one that is 85% by one entity waiting to liquidate has been questioned by many organizations as well. The people who own that will expect fair value for it and in essence become billionaires several times over if this really comes to fruition.

>>mindsl+pk
I don't agree with adding cryptocurrencies, but I was very sympathetic to the play services argument. Android is very difficult to program for, and it's even more difficult without play services.

For notifications the alternatives are noticably worse (higher battery usage because you can't coordinate request timings with other apps, an annoying permanent notification), and the leakage is minimal. If you protect your encrypted packets from Google the NSA will see them anyway.

Your custom implementation will be quite complicated, and if you only enable it for a small subset of your users it'll be a pain to debug.

>>iudqno+zH
I said willfully for a reason, as opposed to just reluctantly.

I agree about the sorry state of non-Google notifications on Android. I wish someone would make a common notification framework for the Free world that would be installed alongside system-level F-Droid. Although F-Droid Conversations and Element notifications do work fine for me, regardless of purportedly less battery life, I can understand not everyone wants to make the same choice.

However, I'm referencing more than the notifications issue. I recall an early thread from Signal where they touted the benefits of fully opting into the Google ecosystem - the gist was that Google has expended all of this effort on security and they wanted to take advantage of it to bring security to the masses. And that simply doesn't line up with my own threat model, in which Google is one of the most significant attackers.

>>mindsl+uT
> Signal where they touted the benefits of fully opting into the Google ecosystem - the gist was that Google has expended all of this effort on security and they wanted to take advantage of it to bring security to the masses

What exactly do they rely on google for? They use them for their push notifications and they use some google servers on the back end.

They do offer the app on the app store as 99% of android users get their apps that way, but signal also offers app downloads from the signal website if the user doesn't want to use play store.

>>rOOb85+kT1
I wish I could find the original source. It was an early post by Moxie about how embracing the Google ecosystem would give security to the masses of users, rather than worrying about the technical crowd that wants to be free of Google.