Some are quick to promote apps as being safe for your use just because they are encrypted. I will talk about how many of the popular apps that are commonly t...
He is saying that encryption makes you a target:
Well, WhatsApp is encrypted. So with approximately 2 billion people that all are getting targeted, being targeted isn’t bad anymore, because there are so many targets.
Signal can track metadata: Where is the proof, where is the reference, where is anything of that?
Moxie Marlinspike showed all his metadate in a talk of his. The only metadata there is to read is “lastSeen” and “accountCreated” which says basically nothing. No groups, no contacts, no everything.
Bold assertion to say otherwise without any kind of proof.
This YouTuber is actually notorious for not posting sources to his claims. Which is just goofy since he considers himself to be a source of non-mainstream information on privacy.
From my (very limited) point of view, he is just talking a lot of bullshit.
Its even counterproductive, because he is putting quite good (even tho maybe not perfect) applications on the same level as Facebook’s application, which are so different that I can’t discribe it.
He annoys me so much. It’s awesome that he points out privacy issues and raises awareness. But he always points out things which are possible in theory as facts which are already happening at large. Like after some researchers showed that it might be possible to keep track of location data by using the gyroscope feature, he started to say that all non foss apps are doing that.
The video was mainly about how a lot of these platforms tie your real identity to your user, then use contact lists to leak what users you’re connected to.
He gives the example of a fed wanting to find a suspects for a hacking case. He has a potential list of names, and subpoenas the phone company’s for their phone numbers. He then installs signal, whatsapp, telegram ( all of those services that use real person identifiers ) and adds those phone numbers to his contact list. Boom, now he can narrow down suspects because all of those services, including signal, will tell you if that person uses signal.
The key link was phone number identifiers, which are easily traced to your real identity, and which is the backbone of signal’s id system.
Signal is also hosted in the US, which makes it subject to NSL laws: its illegal for signal to tell you if they’ve been compromised. Sure, the US gov might not have message content, but they likely have real people’s identities in a connection graph, with dates and times of contact.
He gives the example of a fed wanting to find a suspects for a hacking case. He has a potential list of names, and subpoenas the phone company’s for their phone numbers. He then installs signal, whatsapp, telegram ( all of those services that use real person identifiers ) and adds those phone numbers to his contact list. Boom, now he can narrow down suspects because all of those services, including signal, will tell you if that person uses signal.
The only thing the fed is doing here is checking if number x has signal installed. How is ‘having signal installed’ connected to ‘being a hacker/criminal’?
Hackers are more likely to use encrypted messengers, and signal will gladly tell the world, even people you don’t know that you use it via contact lists. Anyone in law enforcement is going to consider someone who uses encrypted messengers a more likely suspect than someone who doesn’t.
I don’t know…
He is saying that encryption makes you a target: Well, WhatsApp is encrypted. So with approximately 2 billion people that all are getting targeted, being targeted isn’t bad anymore, because there are so many targets.
Signal can track metadata: Where is the proof, where is the reference, where is anything of that? Moxie Marlinspike showed all his metadate in a talk of his. The only metadata there is to read is “lastSeen” and “accountCreated” which says basically nothing. No groups, no contacts, no everything. Bold assertion to say otherwise without any kind of proof.
deleted by creator
From my (very limited) point of view, he is just talking a lot of bullshit.
Its even counterproductive, because he is putting quite good (even tho maybe not perfect) applications on the same level as Facebook’s application, which are so different that I can’t discribe it.
deleted by creator
He annoys me so much. It’s awesome that he points out privacy issues and raises awareness. But he always points out things which are possible in theory as facts which are already happening at large. Like after some researchers showed that it might be possible to keep track of location data by using the gyroscope feature, he started to say that all non foss apps are doing that.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The video was mainly about how a lot of these platforms tie your real identity to your user, then use contact lists to leak what users you’re connected to.
He gives the example of a fed wanting to find a suspects for a hacking case. He has a potential list of names, and subpoenas the phone company’s for their phone numbers. He then installs signal, whatsapp, telegram ( all of those services that use real person identifiers ) and adds those phone numbers to his contact list. Boom, now he can narrow down suspects because all of those services, including signal, will tell you if that person uses signal.
The key link was phone number identifiers, which are easily traced to your real identity, and which is the backbone of signal’s id system.
Signal is also hosted in the US, which makes it subject to NSL laws: its illegal for signal to tell you if they’ve been compromised. Sure, the US gov might not have message content, but they likely have real people’s identities in a connection graph, with dates and times of contact.
The only thing the fed is doing here is checking if number x has signal installed. How is ‘having signal installed’ connected to ‘being a hacker/criminal’?
Hackers are more likely to use encrypted messengers, and signal will gladly tell the world, even people you don’t know that you use it via contact lists. Anyone in law enforcement is going to consider someone who uses encrypted messengers a more likely suspect than someone who doesn’t.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator