Signal WhatsApp Chats Import
github.com
github.com
However I really, really hope they can work on a good backup and restore process as losing my message history because I have to reinstall the app on my desktop[1] or have to reset my phone is a horrible experience.
Just build an encrypted blob and zip it up and pop it on my iCloud or Google Drive or leave it local and let me deal with it but I need something. As my Signal use moves from just messages with friends and family to business contacts I need a reliable way to backup my messages!
[1] I should state I mean losing the desktop copy as it starts "fresh" and does not import any messages from the phone.
Edit: I should probably clarify I am talking about the iOS/macOS applications as these are what I use. iOS does have a migration feature but that doesn't help if your phone is lost/damaged. I need a proper backup and restore process as well as the ability to import messages from the phone to the desktop app.
Not exactly a backup feature but it covers one use case (I don’t want to lose my chat history when I switch devices).
The reality is that my iTunes (encrypted) backup should include my chat message history. That the Signal client on iOS (and maybe even on Android, as while it has backup I think it is a bespoke backup) has decided that somehow Signal chat message history isn't something one can backup at all (much less do using the user's standard backup and restore process) is kind of ridiculous.
Try to have your mom restore Signal backups after her old phone dies and you'll quickly see why.
For some reason, the Signal devs won’t even acknowledge this possibility and continue to say “we can’t enable iCloud backup” - which is fair enough, but nobody is asking for that and they’re simply putting their fingers in their ears.
It's a horrible user hostile process which isn't even implemented for iOS.
iOS gets the smooth new device-to-device direct transfer of the backup while Android users need to copy the encrypted blob (~2GB for me) to the new device and enter the encryption key. Admittedly, it does still allow for more flexibility than on iOS.
The recent issue with the Apple Watch not syncing health data meant that to get anywhere I had to wipe my phone, I had no where to transfer my Signal data too, thus - all gone.
It's not ideal when dealing with members of your family who really don't want to lose data, and is probably one of the few things that stops me in my own situation going over.
I do understand that in some cases this is actually a feature too, so I am not discounting it - just in my case this specific reason makes it really hard to justify a move over.
Just annoying that there isn't really a viable alternative anywhere at the moment :(
If iOS had that same option of a encrypted blob option then that would have solved my issue with the phone restore!
I've tried to report bugs and talk to developers about this but there's one fundamental problem here - the Signal team fundamentally does not value chat history the same way a lot of people do. They think that destroying all chats is a reasonable thing to do when things get hard - which is the exact opposite to many WhatsApp users, which deeply value images and texts sent to them on that platform.
As such, they've been very very resistant at making the backup process for Signal easy for people. This is also why deskop app regularly happily just trashes all its state and fails to resync. This is why they will never let you make the backup process easy and portable.
It's not a technical issue - they just think you're wrong when you want to keep your conversations.
Unfortunately that's can also be a significantly bigger issue than privacy for a lot of people.
If you want to make a nerdy niche chat client that's probably a good mindset, but if you hope to appeal to the masses you'll have to put some water in your wine eventually. I managed to convince a couple of my groups to migrate away from WhatsApp lately, but unfortunately always towards Telegram. Signal is just not there yet if you want a drop-in replacement.
You already have that. Signal-cli is based on a standalone Java library distributed as part of the Signal codebase. Of course it is an unofficial client and the Signal team would really prefer you not use it, but if the Signal-cli team can develop something from that library, you probably could too.
Not being able to back some conversations up is not an option. It would be very ironic if the answer to this was "well, then don't use Signal, because we don't care", and people who cared about the WhatsApp stuff ended up being pushed into Telegram (which seems to be the only other popular alternative, by a wide margin).
In my opinion, Signal is not a "niche curiosity", and mass public is rarely right.
Keeping around old messages more or less negates the value of forward secrecy. The Signal Protocol is obsessively forward secret. So it would be reasonable for those that have put so much work into getting rid of old messages for good would not value them.
> I don't understand why people want to save their whole chat history
Valuable messages and conversations can happen too often that it's a hassle to save them manually. This is probably more common in group chats where lots of people occasionally share valuable stuff.
I don't know much about WhatsApp, and I've never lost any message in Signal, so I am not sure I am well equipped to discuss whether it's fit for that purpose. But I would certainly love to save individual messages in some sort of vault, as well.
If I want a conversation to be private, I set expiring messages, for the rest of it, I want to be able to go back and reference things all the time. Whether it be digging up a song link I sent a buddy, or looking up the address someone sent me a week in advance.
If they can't operate or are unwilling to operate under those guidelines then they just aren't ever going to replace whatsapp with the general populace and the community should start work on something else or agree that telegram is "good enough" (I don't think it is).
Make a setting for those that care. Make it the responsibility of users to make sure all their devices agree on that setting. See? problem solved.
Why? Can you please explain as my understanding of perfect forward secrecy is that should not matter. I'm not a crypto expert so perhaps I've overlooked something?
Think of it like this: if I'm an attacker that breaks into the forward-secret chat app on your device, and you have kept a perfect record of every conversation you've ever had using that crypto system in _the same place you keep your identity keys_, then does it really matter whether the messaging system was "protected" by a forward-secret system? You might as well just have scrapped all that complexity and had non-forward-secure messages if you want to keep a perfect, eternal record of your conversations.
I actually think the Keybase guys did a great job at this. They have non-forward-secure chats by default (so that you never lose chat history), but exploding messages (which delete themselves after a short time by design) are forward-secret, since then it actually makes a difference.
I suppose it depends on your "threat model..." How do you want to use your chat system?
If you had a way to keep your old messages safe then you could of just used that method to protect your private key.
Chat history means giving up some measure of at-rest security, but it has no impact on the in transit part. Personally I also think some compromise of at-rest is a reasonable trade-off for a lot of consumer contexts because physical capture of your device already is basically game over.
I'm no expert, but if all you care about is transit security, I don't think you need PFS (in E2EE messaging! TLS is a different story, because you have to trust the server). Just protect your private key. But if you're carrying multiple device's worth of accumulated messages _right alongside_ your private key, then what's the point of rotating ephemeral keys after each message?
EDIT: I agree about a compromise on PFS/chat history being reasonable in most scenarios. But I also think that defaults are really important, especially as the contents of chat history can be leaked by other participants, whose chat backups you can't really control. It's a tough problem to solve for everyone.
I'm no crypto expert but that "later date" when talking about PFS is to avoid an external dragnet recording all your ciphered streams and then deciphering them once they have your non-PFS secret key.
I mean, in your definition basically all the messages should be ephemeral on your device and on each recipient device to have PFS.
In the first, a global adversary (say, NSA) records all your interactions via a chat service. This chat service does not use PFS. At a certain point, they capture the private key from one of your devices that uses the service, and is able to decrypt all your messages.
In the second, the same global adversary records all your messages, but this time from an otherwise identical service that DOES use PFS. The adversary captures your private key but can only use it to MitM attack you going forward. However, before discarding your device, they check your conversation history -- because your diligent backup and transfer of all your conversations since you signed up for the chat service, they now have all your messages. PFS did not help.
Now, you could change scenario #2 to where you don't have an option to back up and transfer message history (or simply choose not to), and that's essentially Signal. In that case, the adversary is pretty much hosed except for the messages your device just happened to have on it. Adversary steals message backup == adversary steals private key w/o PFS
This is what PFS is all about: it is about noticing that keeping your private key secret is really hard and admitting you're probably not going to be able to do it.
But even so, when it leaks, the attacker won't be able to use it to unlock the ciphertexts of all your previous conversations that he meticulously recorded. This property is PFS.
There is no need for the attacker to have access to your device in order to execute this attack against systems which don't have PFS.
The attacker who has all your ciphertexts needs the decryption key to get the plaintext (which she wants). Now, with a PFS scheme the key gets deleted as soon as I receive and decrypt the message, so the attacker is out of luck, basically (even if she gets my long-term key). However, PFS only moves the target to my plaintext message database...which is stored the same way my key is (as I understand it). So really, unless I purge my message history with some regularity (I do), then the stakes are the same -- don't let the attacker get access to the device.
But most people prefer to have all their chat history available and searchable, at which point individual decryption keys don't matter and therefore PFS doesn't, in my opinion, help much.
Such thinking defeats the actual purpose of the program: to serve users. I don’t want to delete at least some of my history. It’s like Windows, which know better than the users what they want.
The other side of this coin is deniability. If you break into my secure location and steal my chat logs, but you can't tell which are real and which are fake, you've still got work to do.
The Signal protocol has you covered, here. After the fact (ie, as long as you don't watch me receive the message), there is no way to cryptographically prove which of the two participants wrote the message[0]. Thus, it is technically possible to forge a bunch of chat history, or claim that someone else's is forged. Cryptographically, the "spirit of forward secrecy" is secure.
That said, this is far out of the reach of the average person. Even if the only evidence is a screenshot, that conversation probably happened. So in practice yes, you've got a point. That's why I think it would really behoove Signal to add a "forge a conversation" feature. Make it trivial for either person to add a message to their local history that looks like it came from any of the participants, at a specific date/time. Now you've got practical deniability, too.
[0] https://signal.org/docs/specifications/x3dh/#deniability
But it really isn't available to the software author to know how long we want to keep a message for. If I want I can set a disappearing message timer.
I mean, in a sense, all software is just a vehicle for the data it processes, and the actual value lies in the data - not the software.
That data is chats for Signal. If they think that's worthless, even just the history of it, it means they don't really value their own application.
They are wrong.
You don't want someone getting access to your account two years from now to be able to access every old message. Consider every message a separate object that gets encrypted. The keys are changed/updated each time a new device is added to an account. That new device only knows the new key(s), and thus can only decrypt new messages.
The messages I don't want people getting ahold of are either created with expirations or I manually delete them. I couldn't care less if someone 2 years from now can read a chat log between me and my mom if it means that I can actually read them 2 years and multiple devices away from now as well.
What I don't want is to be forced to message with one app for secure chat and something completely different for daily driving. It's a pain, and nobody in my circle is willing to do it (and I don't blame them).
This whole 'I don't care about history' discourse can change greatly for some people after a loved one dies, for example.
> It's not a technical issue - they just think you're wrong when you want to keep your conversations.
as much.
When you are treating security as a number one priority I think there are a lot of things that become technical issues which aren't typically. Transferring or backing up history between disparate devices, which become trusted at different times, is one of those things that I think _is_ difficult to do without sacrificing security.
For example, in the classic case when a user adds a new device and wants history to be available on both you can't let the devices controlled by one person simply sync with one another. To do so would be making a security concession to the other members of the chat in that they no longer verify every destination of their message. If you are unwilling to make a security concession everything in this area becomes magnitudes more difficult. I wouldn't say it is impossible, but it's definitely not trivial.
My gut reaction is also that it is difficult to _guarantee_ history in this type of security first mindset. If you add a new device and someone doesn't approve/verify/trade encryption keys with the additional client then there isn't much you can do besides not make that data available no? So I don't think it unreasonable for developers to hold the mindset that history is not a priority for a security first application.
I mean what is the point of obsessing about the security of the messages if you don't value the messages themselves?
Some people[1] clearly value message history far beyond the transfer point to chat itself, and making people choose between being spied upon and not having message history, I think many people will choose trusting that they won't lose their messages.
[1] Myself included. I check with Signal[2] every six months to see if they have a backup option, then switch back to WhatsApp when I see they don't. Phones die. My messages are more important than my phone.
[2] https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007059752-Ba...
But the general population seems to think they are losing features, instead of gaining, that's why they don't migrate/are upset and surprised when they lose history
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22371316
He actually seemed annoyed that everyone insisted on using it for everything :-)
If you need bulletproof cryptographically verifiable encryption - use Signal.
If one wants to plan dinner, use whatever fits your bill.
(And if in addition to the same supposedly bulletproof encryption as Signal you also want NSA^HGoogle to back up your messages and Facebook to know who you talk to and when so they might better customize their ads^H^H^H your experience you can also use WhatsApp :-)
- exchanging passwords? encrypted mail, Signal or something else E2E-encrypted
- work: whatever work says. Mostly slack.
- discussions with friends and family: Telegram
- online shouting competitions: twitter
- showing off: Instagram
- telling Facebook who my friends are and how often I talk to them: WhatsApp ;-)
- work: Matrix
- discussions with friends and family: Matrix
- online shouting competitions: twitter
- showing off: Instagram
I don't get why I or anybody should switch to Signal. It's not a good app.
Anyone who is security/privacy conscious to use Signal is also using a solid password manager and not reusing passwords as well as following good secure data backup practice, I hope.
> To do so would be making a security concession to the other members of the chat in that they no longer verify every destination of their message.
You can't "verify every destination" with Signal anyway. Maybe the message is going to my phone, maybe it's going to my phone and my desktop - the sender can't tell.
Sure, if you are trying to add an entirely new recipient to a conversation, then of course you can't send them the entire conversation history - but nobody is asking for that.
What people want is the ability to add a new device for an existing recipient, and have the history sync across.
With Signal I can already add a new device and continue existing conversations without the other participants being notified that I've added a new device. Adding conversation history doesn't diminish anything from a security perspective.
> With Signal I can already add a new device and continue existing conversations without the other participants being notified that I've added a new device.
Just today I had a group chat notification that said:
"More than one member of this group is no longer marked as verified. Tap for options"
Tapping brought me to a menu that said:
"Safety Number Changes -- The following people many have reinstalled or changed devices. Verify your safety number with them to ensure privacy"
At which point I was given the option to re-verify (e.g. via a provided QR code), but also the option to manually mark "verified". That is to say something does notify participants of changes to recipient devices.
Linked devices are different. There is no notification when someone adds a new linked device. That's because the only way to add a linked device is to scan a QR code on the device with your phone, then confirm you want to add the device. The device is implicitly trusted, because only a trusted device can add it. (It is also possible to trigger the re-verification from the desktop manually by clicking "reset secure season" in the conversation menu, but that's separate from adding a device.)
Aside: Implicit trust like this is a great trade-off, because otherwise you'd have to verify each of their devices from each of your devices, which means approximately nobody will ever do it. Ask anybody who used Matrix/Element E2EE prior to a couple months ago ;D.
This is the core problem as why many projects don't get mainstream. They have 2 options: they can focus on what they think is a priority, or on what the public thinks is a priority.
I'm not saying Signal is wrong on doing what they are doing, as they are being successful among some niches (i.e: tech). But to grab Whatsapp users, they need feature and UX parity, at least to some level
They're singularly focused on the user experience and what users want.
Uninstall / reinstall / multiple-devices works flawlessly.
So you can use regular texting for everything you don't care much about, like sending youtube videos and memes to your friends, and use the secret chat to things that re more sensitive. That's great for most people that currently use Whatsapp
* Whatsapp is closed source, so you can't tell if the encryption is true anyway (what if they are transmitting your private key?). Telegram has open source implementation and API.
* Facebook will not have your metadata. The subject of these events is basically FB having too much of data about you.
I would expect a Signal implementation of this to allow recovering chat history if you restore a backup onto the new device and if you re-enter your PIN.
(Also, your Signal PIN can be an alphanumeric passphrase.)
I don't either, but a chat app is useless if I can't use it to chat with people and almost nobody I know will consider Signal. It's either WhatsApp, Telegram, or SMS (horrible).
But you're right, Signal is designed for secure communication between parties. Allowing messages to be exported or archived should at worst leave only your own messages (and remove all others including media) and at best not exist at all.
Sure, let me just single handedly backup our conversation and send it to the HK police...
I doubt my mom will send my 'good morning', 'good night' and 'love you' to the HK police.
If you are communicating with people you don't know/trust, then yeah, you want expiring messages that are not exportable
It would be perfectly fine if exporting/importing chat history would be a manual process via encrypted files and if it was disable by default. But not having it at all is an issue for me.
That said: It isn't exactly easy with other messengers. WhatsApp does have some backup/restore. But afaik it is limited to the platform you are using (Android or iPhone). The export is limited and cannot be imported again. Telegram has all the messages on their servers... which... ah well, let's just leave it at that.
Makes me think that I need some private third party database that just ingests and consolidates all my chat data for me. With something like that it might be okay just having a few days worth of chat history on the phone.
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/kt91qk/signal_p...
I don't want that kind of history on my phone. Messages are temporary to me. But, maybe I'm special.
You can actually just use another logged-in device (e.g. your desktop) to recover your chats by scanning a QR code to trust the new device. Recovery key is just in case this isn't an option.
I used to be a message-hoarder too, but I recently realized it was all utterly useless and the cost of maintaining and transferring that history around everywhere wasn't worth the twice-a-year I actually wanted to search for something.
Signal isn't email.
- a friend says something that you don’t realise is important until months later and need to reference
- a friend or partner dies and you wish to revisit old times by reading your messages
- a couple wish to nostalgically re-read random conversations from their early time together
- a group chat for work or students shares valuable resources that you wish to reference, but is impractical to make copies of the dozens of messages
- legal reasons if somebody accused you of saying or doing something you did not do
- you’re going to an address (for example) that somebody sent you a week prior, but you forgot to save it
People are forgetful, people are emotional and nostalgic, and people are argumentative. All very good reasons for a chat history. Disappearing messages are simply always opt-in precisely because most people do not want it.
Based on what use case? Many times I searched old personal and group chats, to find what I wanted in a message from 1 year before
There are more than a few conversations I would absolutely love to be able to revisit, but I can't. Like those small, ordinary moments with my Grandma, of which I remember just very little, I didn't think much of them at the time. With those people I've lost who did leave chatlogs, they have been helpful at times.
I find it also can be very insightful to be able to drop into ten-years-ago me's life, just to find how much I've changed in some respects – or how little. It's a great source of self-reflection for me.
If keeping chat logs is something you personally don't value, that's great, you do you. But keep in mind that people are wildly different and lots will have needs, preferences and principles that are the opposite of yours, and just as valid.
Because I have repeatedly dug out useful information from chats, days, weeks, months, or years later.
> If something important comes up, like an address or recipe, copy/paste it into your notes app.
You're assuming that 1) you know what's important at the time, rather than realizing later, and 2) you want to take the time, at the time, to figure out somewhere to file it.
> I used to be a message-hoarder too, but I recently realized it was all utterly useless
That's your choice, but that doesn't make it the right choice for everyone. Your preferences are not universal. (And descriptions like "hoarder" deride the choices of others.)
> Signal isn't email.
People advocate using Signal in place of email, for security.
I cannot advocate Signal to anyone I know until it learns to treat user data as incredibly valuable and irreplaceable.
If people want to mark their messages as transient, or even mark all their messages as transient, so be it; that's their choice. But if a message is not marked as transient, it must be possible to securely and easily preserve that message for longer than the lifetime of any one device.
I wanted to use Signal as my primary messenger. I really did. But I had a ton of sync problems between my phone and my desktop client, tried to report them, and the developers didn’t care. Then one day I got a new phone and discovered I’d lost my old Signal identity and there was no way to export my messages from my old phone. And the developers didn’t care about that, either.
They always had some excuse for why it was the “right” behavior and the user’s fault. For example: clients just can’t sync more than 1000 messages, and if you go this long without using your desktop client, well, you’re out of luck, and you should have realized this.
I just can’t recommend a platform on which the developers don’t care about usability.
I can't walk my mom through the archaic Signal backup/restore all the time.
It's not even the message history I care about. It's the fact that people sent me texts in the group while having no idea I was no longer receiving them. If there was a way to back up just the group memberships, that would be great.
I will not enter important data into any system that I cannot get it out of.
Never mind that transitioning between iPhones (we almost bought her a new phone this year) has the same problem. That this is not supported invalidates Signal as a replacement for SMS or Whatsapp for many many non-technical users.
Reliability and a lack of surprises are the absolute most important features for the 21st century extension of the good ol' Plain Old Telephone Service, and it's sad and frustrating that anyone delivered chat software without getting that first.
Better yet, how about a zip of text files?
Not trolling, honestly curious :-)
In other words, if I had a chance to record, search and navigate through real life conversations, I would have done that too; it is way better to have records than to try to remember things.
In fact, shedding that memory shed cognitive distraction I did not know I had.
If I want to connect to people I do it here and now. Talking to the past in my head is unhealthy.
As a counter to that, I lost a close friend to suicide. It was really good to be able to reflect back on the conversations we had and relive the lighter moments we shared together. I agree that dwelling on those things can be unhealthy, but they can also be a valuable part of the healing process.
I went through the same in my 20s, grieved and moved on.
For what ever reason, reconnecting to it just makes me mad and depressed now. He’s not dealing with environmental collapse, political unrest, economic inequality, racism...
I find leaning into my anger over reality now leads me to be more productive than ennui over people no longer around to concern themselves with those issues.
However to avoid 1) having to manually delete things and 2) accumulating hundreds of megabytes of messages and 3) to not be swamped by months and years of "can you call?", "alright, see you later" and other ultimately meaningless stuff, I have conversations in Signal with my frequent interlocutors set to expire after a month.
To save things, I currently simply screenshot the relevant parts of the conversation or forward them to my "Notes to myself" thingy for later. It's a bit manual, but at least it's simple to remember: what I don't actively save disappears. Screenshots leave out audio messages and gifs (to a certain extend) but it is at least something. (And I just realised that with Signal it's actually possible to download individual audio messages and video so that a later reconstitution is possible if tedious.)
However, what would be great is to indeed have a way to backup messages including stickers, audio, videos etc. in a more high-fidelity way to relive important converations.
People do burn their letters for valid reasons (or use more naturally ephemeral media like phone calls, talking IRL, or Signal's disappearing messages) but those reasons are orthogonal to moving house or getting a new phone.
In any case, if people want to save chat history, the appropriate response is to support that requirement rather than to tell users that no, we've decided that they actually do not want to do that.
Actually that's usually when I finally make the effort to burn old mail that I can't just throw away. (insurance payment paperwork, credit card bills, etc)
Maybe I should invest in a shredder.
This is the reason why mattermost exists - the devs lost their chat history of some enterprise solution and thought: never again. So they created mattermost.
That said, I deleted my WhatsApp account today just because some organizations assumed that this was an acceptable and convenient way of reaching me if I gave them my phone number. Didn't use it much anyway.
Fairer analogy: If you could search transcripts of your IRL conversations at no additional cost (no notetaking), would you?
I think most people would say yes.
I’m not trolling either. The point is not whether you value something to look back on in the future or not. It’s that a lot of people value that and would use a service that aligns with those needs. Chats can also have photos and videos that someone else shared. It’s not easy or clear to many people that they should save or offload those from an (unreliable) chat app if they want to look back at those later.
Some people are nostalgic and find great comfort in something like a chat history or a photo album (sometimes they're almost one and the same)
Nobody really needs it. Arguably it might be a burden or an impediment to growth.
People I have lived with, adventures I've been on, jobs I've done, projects I've engaged with, academic papers I'm an author on, and especially special moments and times with loved ones. Intimate conversations. Photos with great stories behind them.
Bear in mind also that some special photos, long personal messages and even videos and voice recordings only exist in chat platforms these days. Although I find it is mainly text that has the most profound triggering of memories.
I can't make a long enough list of the kinds of things I don't realise are in my memory until it's jogged, and I can't emphasise enough how rich the tapestry of past life parts seems to be.
I simply forget how rich my life has been. How much I've done with other people (despite the fact I don't spend much time with people). How many places I've been, how many wonderful people I've been with.
When reminded, by accident, it's an amazing feeling, like having a whole past self come to life for a few minutes.
I'm, like, "wow, I'd completely forgotten", and enjoying the full VR-in-my-head experience while myriad connections are activated.
It's an immensely touching and pleasurable thing to have things like that brought back, and it's completely different from ordinary remembering. It's much more vivid, accompanied by wow feelings, and just does not happen with ordinary recall.
In an interesting comparison to day to day thinking, it tends to be very consistently good feeling too. Most things day to day feel like a grind. There are many awful past experiences. But the kinds of memory activation I'm talking about tend to be associated with immensely positive, glad feelings - it's as if those feelings need years to pass and change to happen to "brew" into something that is felt in a different way.
Dwelling in the past excessively is unhealthy. But occasionally stumbling across something that awakens a completely forgotten and yet cherished long-lost memory-network is like getting to know myself, who I am now and who I was then, and be amazed at how much larger my life has been than I normally think of it day to day, no matter what I'm doing each day.
It only happens about twice a year I guess, if that. When it does I'm also reminded how much larger must the set of other things be that are not being remembered, that would completely and vividly transform my view of my life, and feelings about my life, if they were to be activated. I feel a sense of awe to recognise that my perception of myself in the present is, in some sense, tiny, blinkered and mundane compared to my actual real life, and not at all representative of the fullness of who I am, have been, and therefore will probably be in future.
I'm trying to say that, for me, some kinds of accidentally prompted memory-networks are incredibly valuable for obtaining perspective on life; my life, and life of people in general.
For me that helps me to connect better to people here and now, and I think it makes me a better person to others, in the now, to be reminded of such things.
What made it more irritating was that you only get one "phone detection" attempt per account transfer process, and you're rate-limited on the server side, so I got soft-banned for 24 hours after several attempts.
(I had the same issue migrating from an iPhone SE to an iPhone 12 mini.)
Enabling a backup on iOS, even if buried in advanced settings, that lets me export an encrypted .zip (for example, similar to Android) to my internal storage via the Files app would be tremendous. As it stands, I lost a very large amount of message history when an old iPhone broke.
I totally understand your reasons for not enabling iCloud backup, but why not a local encrypted backup via the Files app, just like Android?
Even if you feel this goes against your ethos, though I do not understand why that would only apply to iOS, it would be far better to go through a few warning messages and back up my messages than to lose years of conversations with a friend or partner who passed away. There’s hundreds upon hundreds of anecdotal stories where people value this or were burned by Signal on iOS, so clearly it is important to a large part of your existing and also potential userbase.
At the other side there is Telegram, where the conversation are saved on the cloud, which is great, but everyone can delete or edit a message even years after it was sent! And thus even on Telegram you need backups (with is inconvenient, but can be avoided with a script that exports all your conversation scheduled to run every once in a while)
I would actually use Signal (or whatever other application) if they would have a simple way to export and also import messages. Best thing would obviously be to make a standard interoperable, at least shared by open source applications, like is done with the mailbox format for emails, so you can take your chat, export them, and import them on another system if you want to migrate from one to another.
At worst a backup from Signal should only be your messages and at best it should not exist. Signal is designed for secure communication not archiving communications you wish to be secure. If you want a texting app try Telegram or something more focused on user experience vs secure communication.
It's not federated, but most importantly, they don't allow 3rd party clients:
https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...
So you are stuck with their Electron junk without any options.
Matrix should be promoted as an open alternative instead.
There are more possible stances than just "we disallow third party clients" and "we strongly encourage third party clients".
Still, I would like to see proper use of encryption by Telegram. Secret chats have no meaning if no one uses them.
I would argue that the user distribution does not matter. What's important is eliminating network effects, which you get with federation.
I think most people would consider email a successful federated service, and yet far more than half of users are only on the biggest three servers.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/whos-the-biggest-u-s-e-mail-se...
I don't know about Mastodon's case, but in Matrix the extremely low popularity of alternative servers is kind of a big roadblock.
This sounds like the opposite of the point I was making. What is this a roadblock to?
Both of these will probably have a further decentralising effect.
While Matrix have other native clients they are pretty much where they started.
https://community.signalusers.org/t/migrate-from-whatsapp/10...
As we stand now even Signal is not safe because of the business model.
I wonder what's the model on messaging apps that will work. I don't want the OS creators to own the messaging platforms as well by virtue of subsidising it through OS/hardware.
?
Ok, good, but you do realize that this is the most existential concern of them all?
Why does FB so aggressively pursue personal data?
For advertising. Because 'that's the business model'.
Do you think that any entity would be in that position if say, people were willing to actually pay $3/month for what seems to be very obviously a highly useful service?
Maybe, but probably not.
If people would pay for value, there at least would be considerably less incentive to have personal data.
People seem to be willing to pay Apple and AT&T through the nose, oddly, not for those creating the services themselves.
"We get what we pay for".
Apple's services can be ad free because they hide the cost in the cost of phone but that is extremely anti competitive.
A user on an iPhone will have a hard time rationalizing for Signal which says $3 per month when he looks at iMessage and that is free
This is really a false narrative.
The 'sell out' was the 'sale to Facebook'.
A business is not really going to necessarily keep that kind of promise, they are going to do what's best for them - that's why they made the acquisition.
This idea that the WA founders could somehow hold Zuck to that 'promise' is fantasty. They are not naive, they knew what they were doing.
Not only did they know there was nothing they could do otherwise, but that there would be an existential pull from FB to push for data sharing that would be unavoidable.
The 'moral high ground' that the founders tried to take in public is really kind of despicable, because they knew exactly the cards in play when they sold.
If the 'promise' was to do with branding, or something secondary, but fine. But you don't sell drugs to a drug dealer with the promise that the dealer won't deal drugs.
Anyhow, we are where we are. People should fork over $1 month for chat. It would make a big difference.
1) A sale to an advertising company will result in WA data being used for Ad sales, there's no reason to believe otherwise.
2) Paid apps would be ideal for privacy, but I didn't imply that people were necessarily willing to pay for it.
The problem frankly is not 'Facebook' it's us.
We want 'all the privacy' for 'free'. If we paid a small amount, we could have privacy because there'd be an underlying supportable business model.
Federated. History has shown that any system that puts control in the hands of one entity eventually ends up bad.
The revenue pressure from Apple cutting FB ad revenue due to nerfing tracking has forced FB's hand. They have to monetize Whatsapp.
So great job getting WhatsApp import working. But too bad you can't export anything from Signal. Dark patterns ahoy.
I've used it myself.
Signal is owned by a nonprofit organization that cannot legally be sold to a for-profit organization.
I haven't found a way to circumvent this restriction. There were some tricks like installing a modified Russion WhatsApp APK but that risk didn't seem worth it.
A patent on backup up files?! Oh frak this system is broken beyond repair...
https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/1014#issu...
> This feature is unavailable in Germany due to patent concerns:
> https://www.teltarif.de/whatsapp-chat-exportieren-iphone/new... (article in German)
"For example, there was a dispute about whether Whatsapp uses a technology that Blackberry holds a patent on when sending a chat history to a third party via email."
(translated via Deepl, source https://t3n.de/news/gericht-verbietet-apps-whatsapp-1231364/)
The actual legal claims are in this document: http://docs.dpaq.de/13322-031127684372.pdf
A shame that WhatsApp had to remove that feature.
in addition, even though the wikipedia has been operating with donations but would it also be a sustainable way to run a chat service too?
https://github.com/zikani03/pakadali
Heroku dyno here: https://pakadali.herokuapp.com/wa2json.html
The interface can look better, and it would be great if it can automatically backup all messages and media to the cloud and encrypt it. There is also this annoying "verify pin" popup that shows up once in a while.
Settings > Privacy > PIN reminders and you can disable that (at your own risk)
But I think this week's events were extraordinary. At the end of the day humans are running these platforms and it becomes very hard to ignore developments like these. As much as I love free speech we have seen throughout the world that there is a real human cost to not censoring these things.
+ Trump is not running out of channels to speak, just who supports him will believe he is censored and will develop a deeper attachment to him. Democracy works when you are able to understand somebody is fool even if you can read what they write.
+ Twitter censored his tweets partially even before what happened recently. When he claimed he didn't lost elections.
+ This time we believe it was acceptable because our political views here in HN, mostly are aligned with the ones of folks running social platforms. Next time it may be different.
Yeah, but what we have seen in social media is that the discourse gets polarized. Everyone hangs around in groups/channels/subreddits/blogs that are of the side they identify with. They are echo chambers which shape their own reality in many ways. So people often tend to believe one version of the events. Over the years we have seen fractures between ideologies grow deeper. So, I am not sure if this strategy works.
> This time we believe it was acceptable because our political views here in HN, mostly are aligned with the ones of folks running social platforms. Next time it may be different.
Completely agree on this. It is definitely dangerous.
There's different types of acceptable that get confused (for some people they may be equivalent, but the problem is that they fail to recognize that for other people they are distinct, and also that they fail to realize that making them equivalent is the essence of totalitarian control), specifically:
“Is it right that the private actor makes this decision?”
vs.
“Is it right that the private actor is free to make this decision?”
Twitter has made several curation decisions I thought were not acceptable in the first sense, because my political views are not aligned with Twitter's, such as deciding to lift the rules applicable to most participants from those that met a new leadership position test in response to widespread complaints about Trump’s routine violations early in its term.
But I don't find those decisions unacceptable in the second sense because I believe in freedom.of speech and the press, which exactly means that Twitter ought to be free to decide on what content it will carry, including whether and how to take the social position of the source of the content into account.
[0]: https://twitter.com/FSFTamilnadu/status/1346864102698754050
It's about time people rise up and oppose this exploitation.
Personally, I want to see more people using Matrix because it solves that exact problem, but before that can happen I think we need a really, really good, easy to use client for it that's less like a Slack/Discord clone and more similar to something like FB Messenger, WhatsApp, Signal, Etc.
I (sadly) agree with you on this. (Ciao Salvatore)
I'm surprised you're being downvoted, is it possibly because of the reference to the current POTUS being "silenced" on Twitter (despite you later state that you're anti-Trump)?
Anyway, I believe you're incorrect on your stance on the new TOS, but I'm studying it more now because I am also a bit confused and I've read conflicting interpretations.
Edit: part of the confusion might stem from the fact that TOS in Europe do not include the data-sharing part with Facebook, which is instead included elsewhere [0]
(HN user antirez is based in Europe, not in the US)
[0]: https://twitter.com/NiamhSweeneyNYC/status/13471849630163394...
About the TOS, to say the final word is impossible because the TOS is written in a very obscure way. But I don't believe they will, at the same time, keep implementing end-to-end encryption and, at the same time, have a TOS that states they can read your messages. Reading your messages would be completely unacceptable: then yes many would switch. IMHO it's just that lawyers tend to fail big time at their work, and that this will get clarified soon.
Your - your device - is one of the "End" in End-to-End Encryption.