Do not message me. I will send out updates via both signal and email but t
me you're going to want to be involved
Do not message me. I will send out updates via both signal and email me you're going to want to be involved
Is signal something secure?? I'm not sure. I used it for less than an
hour and found myself falling deep into an endless -unspeakable- type of content hole....
It replaces your non-secure text messaging, not your Discord... its a
But I happen to have a political role in a workers union and I'm in
charge of the communictation of the group that maganes the union currently, so I'm always on the lookout for any "bleeding edge" options, especially about security and encryption, and freedom of speech and association (BluSky...), and such. Thank you for the valuable info you shared with me, Paulie.
paulie420 wrote to Malvinas <=-
Understood. Signal is really great for conversations that do need that security... theres another one, Simple-X that looks pretty cool. I
*think* its more like a Matrix/Element w/ group chats/rooms and
whatnot. Like you, I don't have a threat model that requires all these things, but with China looking at our cross-branded text messaging,
Signal can play an important role.
Android to Android and iOS to iOS comms are still pretty secure, but
cross platform text messaging is wide open at the moment.
I wondered why Signal dropped its SMS support - being able to easily
send a Signal link to an SMS recipient seemed like a great way to spread support for Signal - and it meant one less app on my phone.
paulie420 wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
I don't use it much, but didn't notice that. I can still send text,
images and video on Signal, right???
I don't use it much, but didn't notice that. I can still send text, images and video on Signal, right???
Yes - just not to SMS/MMS recipients. I got a couple of people to use Signal by sending them a link through the app in an SMS message conversation.
Yes, Signal is an encryption secured messaging platform.
You can send text, photos and even videos that are
protected by your 'signal secret' -a public and private
encryption key...
It replaces your non-secure text messaging, not your
Discord... its a bit tough to get family and friends on
board, but if they are its a fully secure way to send
messages w/o the govt, fed or China listening.
Ogg wrote to paulie420 <=-
I'd recommend Session for privacy. One con, it doesn't offer
re-editing sent messages.
I'm also utilizing Simplex (allows re-edit), and still on
occasion, Briar.
I'd recommend Session for privacy. One con, it doesn't offer
re-editing sent messages.
I'm also utilizing Simplex (allows re-edit), and still on
occasion, Briar.
And, although there is a desktop for Signal, it still needs to
be initially installed on one's phone and a phone number.
That's an open vector for ID tracking.
Nice - I haven't used Session, but I'll have to take a look at it. Kinda amazing that there ISN'T a fully open-sourced, fully private and fully encrypted application yet.
Arelor wrote to paulie420 <=-
Set an XMPP server (like prosody) and convince your friends to use an
XMPP client (Like Conversation). There are some encription schemes. OTR
is a popular one.
That requires users to manage their credentials (which is a bad
drawback because people is no longer cabale of using username/password combinations) but is way more interoperable than the crap most people
is using.
I loved OTR, played with it and Trillian for some time. If memory
serves, OTR was a per-client thing and not a per-protocol thing - I
thought you could run OTR on any protocol that Trillian used?
That requires users to manage their credentials (which is a bad drawback because people is no longer cabale of using username/password combinations) but is way more interoperable than the crap most people is using.
Can't you just use Facebook Auth? :)
Nice - I haven't used Session, but I'll have to take a look at it. Kind amazing that there ISN'T a fully open-sourced, fully private and fully encrypted application yet.
One of the best ideas I have seen in private, decentralized instant messaging applications is Delta Chat. Unfortunately I don't use it, well because no one else does. Its a very simple concept. Delta Chat uses your
Has anyone here ever taken a look at Delta Chat, any
thoughts?
Set an XMPP server (like prosody) and convince your friends to use an
XMPP client (Like Conversation). There are some encription schemes. OTR
is a popular one.
That requires users to manage their credentials (which is a bad drawback because people is no longer cabale of using username/password combinations) but is way more interoperable than the crap most people is using.
They used to have that in the i2p darknet. It worked quite well.
neoshock wrote to Arelor <=-
messaging applications is Delta Chat. Unfortunately I don't use it,
well because no one else does. Its a very simple concept. Delta Chat
uses your existing IMAP based email server, even something like gmail,
to store and send your IM. The chats are stored in an encrypted folder
in your email server in which only the Delta Chat app can read. It
seems to me would be a great way to decentralize instant messaging
without re-inventing the wheel, as email servers are a dime a dozen.
Has anyone here ever taken a look at Delta Chat, any thoughts?
Netmail me your invite link and I'll add you to my system.
Delta was the first thing I thought of when I saw this
message thread. I loved the idea of using existing TLS-
enabled transport and encryption at rest that already
exists, as well as mature routing mechanisms, since it's
all email. And, you can own your own server easily, with
your content sitting on your box.
I'm on delta chat as poindexter@kataan.org if anyone wants to test.
...as I also created a special email account for it. its chatwith@lloydalexandre.com
I wasn't sure if my DT deltachat could deliver to an email
address. But I think it worked. I think it went out under my
usual email address - not sure if I want to continue that way.
I might like to create a deltachat-specific email address
instead.
Hi, I did get your message, but for some reason your email
server rejected my replies. However, it seems to be working
today, as I tried both desktop and mobile apps.
Signal is actually great because tin foil hat paranoid
nerds like me can use it to chat with regular smartphone
wielding sheep without compromising too much. It is far
from awesome but it is the only privacy and security
centric messaging application that is close to mainstream,
is about as easy to use as mainstream messengers, and does
not require the smartphone wielding sheep to manage their
own credentials.
Ogg wrote to Arelor <=-
BUT.. is it not true that when you create a Signal account,
they will [by default anyway] blast every user in your contact
list that also has Signal with a notice they you're newly
joined?
BUT.. is it not true that when you create a Signal account,
they will [by default anyway] blast every user in your contact
list that also has Signal with a notice they you're newly
joined?
BUT.. is it not true that when you create a Signal account,
they will [by default anyway] blast every user in your contact
list that also has Signal with a notice they you're newly
joined?
paulie420 wrote to Ogg <=-
So I tried out the new encrypted messaging apps and found Sessions to
be the best;
Signal - still requires a phone#
Sesions - no phone#, can be anonymous
SimpleX - no account even; completely anonymous
... SimpleX is TOO much for me - Sessions is perfect IMO.
So I tried out the new encrypted messaging apps and found
Sessions to be the best;
Signal - still requires a phone#
Sesions - no phone#, can be anonymous
SimpleX - no account even; completely anonymous
... SimpleX is TOO much for me - Sessions is perfect IMO.
I just don't know how you get a group of people to use
anything except Signal, unless something goes seriously
sideways and people look to an alternative.
Session looks nice, I wish there was a unc convention for
usernames so you could share your contacts more easily
than with a QR code.
There are some interesting concerns about AI features on
phones being able to read encrypted messages once they're
on the phone and being a weak link. Physical access to the
device usually means game over anyways, though - unless
there's a backdoor in AI assistants we don't know about.
Perhaps Signal seems to have had a headstart in the market, and
thus attained the necessary momentum to attract users. More
people learned about it faster than any of the others.
Hello poindexter FORTRAN!
Session looks nice, I wish there was a unc convention for
usernames so you could share your contacts more easily
than with a QR code.
People can exchange the "Your Session ID" string.
Stuff like WhatsApp is popular here because people does not
need to manage credentials. You just feed it your phone
number after downloading the App and you are set. You don't
even need to exchange contacts because your friends already
have your phone number. End users expect that sort of thing
and Signal just provides that thing.
If a different solution needs you to generate an ID and
exchange the ID with your peers, that solution is going to
be less popular because lambs are not expecting that from a
mobile messenger.
Signal - still requires a phone#
I'm still leary to bother with Signal. Does it facilitate
sync'ing between devices?
Sesions - no phone#, can be anonymous
Exchanging the initial invite links kinda exposes the parties
though if regular email is used.
Session still is operational on Win7 machines too.
SimpleX - no account even; completely anonymous
... SimpleX is TOO much for me - Sessions is perfect IMO.
I think Simplex is quite nice. It has re-edit! :D ..but I
don't think it supports sync between devices.
Have you tried Briar? It's has a slightly different look/flow.
It facilitates a kind of "broadcast" channel where a message
there will be sent to all contacts, and a "forum" channel that facilitates topical discussion if desired.
Ogg wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
device usually means game over anyways, though - unless
there's a backdoor in AI assistants we don't know about.
Can anyone confirm if the locally received messages are stored
encrypted? If stored decrypted, barring a session app access
password, that would seem to be a concern.
Ogg wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
BTW.. I sent you my Session ID via deltachat. Is that ID
string not simple to add your Session?
Arelor wrote to Ogg <=-
If a different solution needs you to generate an ID and exchange the ID with your peers, that solution is going to be less popular because
lambs are not expecting that from a mobile messenger.
If I were in an organization and looking for encrypted comms within
teams, I'd certainly consider something like Session.
Ogg wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
BTW.. I sent you my Session ID via deltachat. Is that ID
string not simple to add your Session?
Oh, that's what that was? Will try adding it this morning.
Arelor wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
IMO organizations are more interested in having the comms stay within
the bounds of the organization than having them end-to-end encrypted.
| Sysop: | digital man |
|---|---|
| Location: | Riverside County, California |
| Users: | 1,023 |
| Nodes: | 17 (1 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 03:38:50 |
| Calls: | 502,246 |
| Calls today: | 18 |
| Files: | 104,446 |
| U/L today: |
1 files (39K bytes) |
| D/L today: |
3,185 files (3,194M bytes) |
| Messages: | 299,590 |
| Posted today: | 4 |