> He needs it to be reliable first, secure second.
Than he should use something else. I need signal to be secure first, second and third and reliable in edge cases like this a distant number.
Than he should use something else. I need signal to be secure first, second and third and reliable in edge cases like this a distant number.
I think it would be better if Signal more loudly communicated the drawbacks of its encryption approach up-front, warning away casual users before they get a nasty surprise after storing a lot of important data in Signal.
I’ve heard Signal lovers say the opposite—that getting burned with data loss is somehow educational for or deserved by casual users—and I think that’s asinine and misguided. It’s the equivalent of someone saying “ha! See? You were trading away privacy for convenience and relying on service-provider-readable message history as a record all along, don’t you feel dumb?”, to which most users’ will respond “no, now that you’ve explained the tradeoffs…that is exactly how I want it to work; you can use Signal, but I want iMessage”.
It shouldn’t take data loss to make that understood.
We'll see it intentionally backdoored this decade. Signal can afford to, eg, tell the UK or EU to go fuck themselves. Meta won't.
Signal's development team can decide that they prioritize security over usability to whatever degree they like, and that's their prerogative. That may result in fewer users, and a less than stellar reputation in the usability space, but that's up to them. And if we (the unpaying user base) don't like it, we are free to use something else that better meets our needs.
(And you probably don't need to worry about losing the 'running late' message in the lake... The need for good encryption and reliable backup on any given message is likely somewhat correlated.)
Hundreds of millions are not so lucky.