Signal President Meredith Whittaker on resisting government threats to privacy

> On the infrastructural disadvantage, that’s true, but we also have the advantage of … we don’t have to be full of shit. We’re not actually a surveillance company. I’m not trying to pretend Facebook is good. I don’t have to toe a party line that is divorced from reality. And we aren’t Big Tech.

Quite bold statements in this article. I hope they figure out ways to pull off the domain fronting she mentions despite opposition from companies like Amazon with Cloudfront [1]:

> Our hope would be that we can implement Signal in a way that [would require a government to] cut off all of Google or all of the internet if you want to block Signal. And thus, we have some level of cover there. This has been referred to as domain fronting. I won’t get into detail on how we use those because there’s an advantage to not [getting into it]. We are actively working on it.

[1]: https://signal.org/blog/looking-back-on-the-front/

tl;dr:

Meredith Whittaker, Signal's President, discusses the U.K. Online Safety Bill and its threat to Signal's operation in the UK, citing concerns about privacy.

Signal opposes the law as part of a global trend undermining digital privacy. They track privacy laws in non-Western countries through a network of experts. Signal's core focus is private communication, and they won't change their stance based on jurisdiction. Signal's encryption prevents them from providing user data in response to government requests. They emphasize their commitment to privacy and encryption.

The interview also mentions Telegram's alleged cooperation with governments and the importance of Signal to dissidents and marginalized communities. Signal is actively working to ensure access even in regions with government bans.

Finally, the interview discusses Russian surveillance, emphasizing the need for user caution. Signal's commitment to privacy remains strong despite challenges.