Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

It's more (1) than (2), is what I think, although I think non-phone authentication is probably trickier than we think it is and so the two categories bleed a bit.

I seriously don't understand what people expect in these discussions, though. The situation is straightforward. A small but vocal minority of Signal's user base wants non-phone-number identification. Signal hasn't prioritized that feature. Put up, or use a different messenger. How is this complicated?

Don't pick horrible messengers, like ones where encryption isn't enabled by default, or doesn't even exist for group messages, or isn't built on a protocol anyone understands or has reviewed. But even with that constraint, you have options.

View on HN

I think mintplant intentions are simply to figure out why Signal is sticking to using phone numbers as ID. I can imagine wanting a tool you like and trust to get broader adoption.

> A small but vocal minority of Signal's user base wants non-phone-number identification.

Have you done a survey before arriving to this conclusion. If so, I'd love to take a look at it, if possible. Otherwise, I can't see how you can make this assertion; everything can be dismissed as a "small but vocal minority".

As a previous signal user, I stopped using signal because I discovered this issue.

As a previous user of a program that uses phone numbers as identification you stopped using Signal because you discovered that it uses phone numbers as identification?

Here's my data point: I used to use Signal but then stopped using a smart-phone for a year, and I very quickly discovered that unlike other chat systems (like Matrix) Signal is so tied to you having a smart-phone that you can't use any desktop communication method. The Chrome App pairs with your phone rather than registering a new device.

(Also, it's kinda funny that Signal has reimplemented the iMessage problem -- you have to unregister your phone number on your website so people can SMS you again rather than continuously sending you Signal messages unintentionally.)

(There are also other problems that have bubbled up in Signal in the past year since I stopped using it -- I've heard there's an auto-backup process that takes more than an hour and makes your phone unusable and you cannot change when it happens.)

Yes. More precisely, I stopped when I discovered that I couldn't decouple the signal user from my phone number.

More importantly, I'm still very interested in seeing the data behind your vocal-minority assertion.

The survey data you are looking for is WhatsApp.

I don't see how. Could you explain?

The biggest messaging platform on the planet uses phone numbers as user ids. It seems very unlikely a majority of users see this as a showstopper.

Those users do not use it a secure messaging platform. The see it as a way to get around SMS fees. The majority of Signal users are likely privacy- and security-focused, and chose to use signal because of the features it provides on those fronts.

Comparing those two userbases doesn't make much sense to me.

The majority of Signal users

I think it's really you who is making the extraordinary claim here and you should be providing the evidence. Signal's goal, as has been repeated many times in these threads is to replace SMS and other less-secure forms of messaging for as many users as possible, not to cater to somewhat off-the-beaten-path concerns over phone numbers. They are aiming for users of messaging. And they are making the very reasonable inference that most of those users are not hung up on identifying themselves with a phone number.

Additionally, if Signal's current users cared about the phone number thing that much, they wouldn't be using Signal to begin with. Where's your survey data that says Signal users just can't stand the phone-number-as-id thing?

I agree that my claim was unsubstantiated and redact it.

What I was trying to convey is that I would expect people who don't understand or care enough about their personal privacy would use more popular and mainstream messengers. Whether people who care about privacy consider phone numbers private or not is something we need data to determine.

> Where's your survey data that says Signal users just can't stand the phone-number-as-id thing?

That's exactly what I'm asking for. At this point, we're both speculating. None of us can make solid claims about either userbase without providing evidence. tptacek most certainly can't claim " a small but vocal minority of Signal's user base wants non-phone-number identification" without providing evidence either, which is the original objection that started this thread.

Don't expect people to take your reason for dismissing their concerns seriously when you base it on your personal perception or beliefs in stead of facts, and don't make unsubstantiated claims to discredit their concerns.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com