I don't know if I'm opening a can of worms here, and I'm still trying to backtrack a lot of history where I was tuning everything out. I keep seeing random swipes at Signal (or the representatives (?)), and I was wondering whether they are founded or just lies.Is it another situation like Lemmy where we just "take the technology and move on"? Thanks!
Different people don't like it for different reasons. Some people don't like it because they think it has CIA financial backing (nope), and some people don't like it because it requires your phone number, therefore it is not private (the privacy it provides is more than sufficient for anyone not actively being persecuted by a Five Eyes state), and some people don't like it because it feels corporate (it's a 501c3 nonprofit, and how corporate it feels is subjective).
Handling SMS and handling secure/encrypted messages could've made people think they communicate securely while relying on text messages instead.
Not handling SMS fixes this source of confusion and I applaud their decision.
I think the number of people who care deeply about privacy and cannot tell the difference between an sms or signal message is minimal. There were plenty of ways signal could have highlighted DANGER UNSECURE CHANNEL if they had wanted to, or made it an off-by-default option, rather than drop SMS entirely. For myself and many other people it meant that family members dropped Signal rather than have an extra messaging app, and so I'm still stuck with WhatsApp on my phone...
The problem is that most people don't want multiple text apps, they just want one. I had gotten a number of people using signal, and it was secure when we talked, but when signal dropped SMS, almost every one of them stopped using it, so then none of their conversations were secure.
Yeah, the never-ending weighting between convenience and security.
But are you going to tell me that those people don't have Whatsapp, Threema, Telegram or any other IM installed and just use plain SMS instead?
Or just accept that not everyone will be having a secure conversation every time at first, but more will be secured as more and more people like me convince our family members to use it and eventually we transition everyone away from SMS?
No, of course not, why would we build a critical mass of users like that?
Since they removed SMS support almost my entire family and my friends uninstalled signal, except a few who keep it to talk to me, and my half dozen friends privacy-conscious enough to care. Dozens of people, down to eight if you don't count me, in my circles alone. Objectively, removing SMS support harmed Signal's popularity and made everyone less secure. The argument for why they did it was at best myopic and also, in my opinion, utter bullshit.
Fun Fact, you can use an open source app like Secure Space Encryptor (SSE) (on iOS its called "Paranoia Text Encryption") to convert any string of text into a encrypted ciphertext, and you can then copy-paste that ciphertext and send it over any medium, like SMS, without the internet. (Most encrypted messaging apps require you have to have internet AFIAK, so people without a data plan is fucked, but with SSE, you can just send ciphertext over SMS) Its not intergrated with SMS, so you'll have to type plaintext in the app then copy paste the ciphertext it spits out.
I remember when Signal used to intergrate with SMS, and I kinda liked that more than the Signal today where you have to use the internet and go through their servers.
Oh yea that overlay thingy, kinda glitchy last time I tried it. If someone is techy enough to manage that clunkiness, then they probably can figure out how to manually copy-paste with SSE.
Btw, these apps are for nerds, not for the average person. No one irl that I know (besides me) would be willing to use either app.
I don't think I've ever seen people say it has CIA financial backing. It did however until only a couple of years ago have strong ties to the State Department's Open Tech Fund (from the same financial envelope that brings you RFA/RFE/VOA).
The main developer of Lemmy seems to think there's a solid connection. I'm not jumping in that fight, I got no dog in that fight, I don't have that kind of threat model.
However, considering he's openly Marxist, he may be just slightly biased.
I suspect OP of this post actually saw the recent /c/Privacy thread over at lemmy.ml where Dessalines was proselytizing against Signal while not seeming to have a problem with SimpleX chat being funded by a group of Venture Capital investors, including Jack Dorsey.