The developers of Signal are currently doing a user survey:

I told them that I really like the app but also that I would like:
a) Signal on @fdroidorg
b) a proper desktop client
c) no data stored in "secure enclaves"

Maybe you'd like to tell them, too?

@newt @fdroidorg It's a non-issue for me. We have networks that are federated and use separate IDs. I am not asking for Signal to become one of them.

I am merely asking for them to not change their threat model by storing my data and to support fully free platforms better.

In fact, not using phone numbers is what they are currently planning, I think, and which has led them to store data in the SGX.

@newt @fdroidorg
Right now the contact list in Signal is stored client side, because the identifier is the phone number and that is stored in your address book. Signal servers don't know who I know or who I am in groups with.

If identifiers are separate, they are not stored in the address book and for any type of usability will be stored server-side. This reverses the trust model.

Whether this data is stored in SGX or not is another matter. Nation-scale adversaries will have access to SGX.

@newt @fdroidorg Sure, if I am actively being targetted, this all won't help. But I think that for general centralised infrastructure a "know-nothing" approach is the best.

I would prefer decentral, but apparently "like WhatsApp" is the main criterium right now. So I would at least like this service to store as little data as possible.

@__h2__ @fdroidorg the problem here is, Signal knows your contacts regardless of what you think, since it routes messages between you and your peers. So the assumption that they don't store anything isn't in any way helpful and we might at least get the benefits of server-side contact list (encrypted, of course). IMO Wire has a nice balance here.

@newt @fdroidorg Yes, they can know, but they don't have to store this. This distinction might be weird from a philosophical point of view, but legally there is a huge difference.

An entirely separate but important point: SGX is a technology that has always been targetted against users' freedom. While Signal people see the use of SGX as "innovative" or a hack, many other people consider it a form of greenwashing, because it lends an "ethical" use-case to an inherently unethical technology.

· · Web · 1 · 1 · 0
@__h2__ @fdroidorg No, they say they don't. That's a huge distinction. Any way, it's kind of weird to trust the company whose entire business model stands on the premise that you only need to trust them as little as possible.

Now, about SGX. Saying that SGX has always been used against users' freedoms is like saying phones have always been used the same way. Which might be true, depending on your perspective, but it isn't the idea behind the technology. I very much like the idea of encrypting memory of various processes so that it can't be accessed in case of some other process becoming compromised. It's up to the software you run how it will be used in your system.
Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!