The Battle Inside Signal(platformer.news)
platformer.news
The Battle Inside Signal
https://www.platformer.news/p/-the-battle-inside-signal
152 コメント
[deleted]
This article is a lot of hot air interleaved with 'concerns' of anonymous people worried that they won't have control over people's speech. It boggles the mind that you could work at Signal and not know that goes with the territory.
More cynically, this is may just be battle space prep for the run up to legislation giving the gov a backdoor into any E2E systems. The pretext being 'something something terrorism'.
More cynically, this is may just be battle space prep for the run up to legislation giving the gov a backdoor into any E2E systems. The pretext being 'something something terrorism'.
Completely agreed. Honestly, I despise the superficially objective and neutral concern troll approach to this. I can't see this article as anything but a dishonest way to say: "what if someone used private communications to do something bad? let's get rid of private communications". Except it doesn't own up to the fact that that's ultimate what it's proposing. It stops at fearmongering.
Also, I commented this above, but there's a different way to solve the problems of polarization and radicalism. It involves solving people's material problems, and the US has been slowly getting worse at this and decaying for a while now. Instead, the political establishment is doubling down on surveillance, the silencing of dissent off of any platform with reach, and ultimately physical repression, through the increased funding and militarization of police.
Right now this is claimed to be targeted at the far right.. but it doesn't take a genius to compare the police reaction to BLM vs the capitol riot to see where it is going.
Also, I commented this above, but there's a different way to solve the problems of polarization and radicalism. It involves solving people's material problems, and the US has been slowly getting worse at this and decaying for a while now. Instead, the political establishment is doubling down on surveillance, the silencing of dissent off of any platform with reach, and ultimately physical repression, through the increased funding and militarization of police.
Right now this is claimed to be targeted at the far right.. but it doesn't take a genius to compare the police reaction to BLM vs the capitol riot to see where it is going.
I concur.
What is surprising to me is that the politicians and bureaucrats seem to think bad actors are supreme idiots. They aren't. The overt nature of a criminal mind whose cloaks themselves in church going taxpayer in suburbia is the reason why no agency in the world can predict tragic acts of domestic terrorism.
If someone is going to plan a Charlie hebdo-esque operation, no intelligence can help you. They can just meet at the park for a cold drink and discuss which weapons they are going to use. Intel agencies rely very much on tip offs from civilians and private interests like banks and shops/malls "guy came in looking dodgy and bought a ton of slightly dangerous stuff" kind of thing.
What is surprising to me is that the politicians and bureaucrats seem to think bad actors are supreme idiots. They aren't. The overt nature of a criminal mind whose cloaks themselves in church going taxpayer in suburbia is the reason why no agency in the world can predict tragic acts of domestic terrorism.
If someone is going to plan a Charlie hebdo-esque operation, no intelligence can help you. They can just meet at the park for a cold drink and discuss which weapons they are going to use. Intel agencies rely very much on tip offs from civilians and private interests like banks and shops/malls "guy came in looking dodgy and bought a ton of slightly dangerous stuff" kind of thing.
Good riddance. As an user these people leaving is a win win. I'm sure they can find a well paid job at $FAANG abusing user data
Dear Signal: please don’t moderate speech. You should never see my speech, or be in a position to enforce any content policy.
The same way USPS doesn’t go around opening letters and getting rid of whatever they don’t like.
The same way USPS doesn’t go around opening letters and getting rid of whatever they don’t like.
>The same way USPS doesn’t go around opening letters and getting rid of whatever they don’t like.
Bad news...
Bad news...
The USPS is prohibited from opening mail between US people. I guess there are exceptions and warrants, but it’s generally true.
They scan the outside and sometimes X Ray the mail though...
They scan the outside and sometimes X Ray the mail though...
There's also the fact that various federal agencies used to completely ignore such restrictions, I wouldn't have any faith that it is generally true.
Plus, "they only freely open mail from out of country" transfers really poorly to Signal.
Plus, "they only freely open mail from out of country" transfers really poorly to Signal.
> I guess there are exceptions and warrants,
That’s the entire point though, right? The politicians and law enforcement agencies want a way to provide those same exceptions for encrypted communications.
That’s the entire point though, right? The politicians and law enforcement agencies want a way to provide those same exceptions for encrypted communications.
Only certain classes of mail, not parcels and whatnot
OP said letters, which I'm pretty sure are protected like that?
I'm surprised that none of these comment threads are addressing the scenario posed in TFA:
> During an all-hands meeting, an employee asked Marlinspike how the company would respond if a member of the Proud Boys or another extremist organization posted a Signal group chat link publicly in an effort to recruit members and coordinate violence.
Like it or not, something like this will happen eventually and Signal will become aware of it, if only through the press. It only makes sense to have a policy framework to deal with these things rather than flying by the seat of your pants. Perhaps the policy will be "we won't take down group chats without a court order", or perhaps it will be something else. But to just punt until a link to some folks planning a lynch mob arrives in [email protected] is irresponsible both to the platform and to the society.
> During an all-hands meeting, an employee asked Marlinspike how the company would respond if a member of the Proud Boys or another extremist organization posted a Signal group chat link publicly in an effort to recruit members and coordinate violence.
Like it or not, something like this will happen eventually and Signal will become aware of it, if only through the press. It only makes sense to have a policy framework to deal with these things rather than flying by the seat of your pants. Perhaps the policy will be "we won't take down group chats without a court order", or perhaps it will be something else. But to just punt until a link to some folks planning a lynch mob arrives in [email protected] is irresponsible both to the platform and to the society.
There's little they can do since the idea of "group" is stored on the users device. Groups don't exist on Signal servers and they can't see when a message is sent to a group.
I don't see how the group links feature can work if that's 100% correct. You can't send someone a hyperlink to a phone. Unless these group links are some special protocol that does some sort of P2P link to the creator's phone (which would presumably then have to be on all the time for it to work).
More importantly than group links is what happens to Signal when someone realises that they can change people's public keys on a whim. Although the app is supposed to display a notification in that case, they can also change the app on a whim.
Fundamentally, I just do not see how Signal's social goals (which are laudable) are compatible with their chosen implementation. Marlinspike's arguments about centralisation vs decentralisation and the moving ecosystem are all valid yet in the end it doesn't matter. He identified a problem and basically ignored the where his chain of logic led, i.e. that he would need to figure out how to keep up with a moving ecosystem in a decentralised way. Otherwise, the end game is easy to anticipate: they bend and start swapping public keys silently, either due to police pressure, or pressure from internal activist employees, or pressure from Google/Apple.
More importantly than group links is what happens to Signal when someone realises that they can change people's public keys on a whim. Although the app is supposed to display a notification in that case, they can also change the app on a whim.
Fundamentally, I just do not see how Signal's social goals (which are laudable) are compatible with their chosen implementation. Marlinspike's arguments about centralisation vs decentralisation and the moving ecosystem are all valid yet in the end it doesn't matter. He identified a problem and basically ignored the where his chain of logic led, i.e. that he would need to figure out how to keep up with a moving ecosystem in a decentralised way. Otherwise, the end game is easy to anticipate: they bend and start swapping public keys silently, either due to police pressure, or pressure from internal activist employees, or pressure from Google/Apple.
So don't make the chats public and linkable. Make group chats invite-only.
The CEO agrees, per the article: "Marlinspike’s response, he told me in a conversation last week, was rooted in the idea that because Signal employees cannot see the content on their network, the app does not need a robust content policy."
It would have been good if that had then continued with something like@:
“what we do need is good tools for users to be able to control who gets to communicate with them on Signal”.
Which it quite likely did, but the author chose to take only the first bit out of context to fit their chosen narrative...
I don’t want Signal to moderate my chats in any way at all. I do want my friends/family to easily be able to only choose to receive messages sent by people they wish to hear from. Which is, at least so far, exactly how things are. I guess these new “group chat links” make a difference, but it’s not like you are ever forced to click and join such a group. I don’t want the internet to be censored or shut down just because some people choose to participate in 4chan/8kun...
“what we do need is good tools for users to be able to control who gets to communicate with them on Signal”.
Which it quite likely did, but the author chose to take only the first bit out of context to fit their chosen narrative...
I don’t want Signal to moderate my chats in any way at all. I do want my friends/family to easily be able to only choose to receive messages sent by people they wish to hear from. Which is, at least so far, exactly how things are. I guess these new “group chat links” make a difference, but it’s not like you are ever forced to click and join such a group. I don’t want the internet to be censored or shut down just because some people choose to participate in 4chan/8kun...
> The same way USPS doesn’t go around opening letters and getting rid of whatever they don’t like.
Bad example because the USPS can and does use x-rays, Geiger counters, and sniffing dogs to inspect packages without actually opening them. No analogous tooling exists for encrypted messages.
Bad example because the USPS can and does use x-rays, Geiger counters, and sniffing dogs to inspect packages without actually opening them. No analogous tooling exists for encrypted messages.
There's routing information, payload size information and temporal information; without reading the message, an adversary could determine where (possibly who) the message is going/coming from, and when it was in transit, and how big it was.
That's enough to start modelling.
That's enough to start modelling.
No risks analogous to the ones detected by those tools exist for encrypted messages.
So the laser beam of outrage has reached Signal. We knew this day was coming.
There are people out there who fundamentally believe that no one should be able to think or speak free from their scrutiny.
There are people out there who fundamentally believe that no one should be able to think or speak free from their scrutiny.
But - what if the Proud Boys can drink from the same water supply? Something must be done!
The American media is a fantastic machine for manufacturing a bogeyman then discarding it once it is no longer useful for narrative purposes.
The American media is a fantastic machine for manufacturing a bogeyman then discarding it once it is no longer useful for narrative purposes.
Say what you want about Trump, but at least he didn't come up with some new "Patriot Act" given the opportunity coronavirus provided.
Never let a good disaster go to waste.
Seems like free speech is on a tight rope after the "insurrection". Sure didn't waste any time.
Never let a good disaster go to waste.
Seems like free speech is on a tight rope after the "insurrection". Sure didn't waste any time.
But the current president did author the original patriot act (the bill it was based on), so there is hope that terrorism can be stopped from spreading on these platforms.
I have a list of communists here...
> So the laser beam of outrage has reached Signal. We knew this day was coming.
Next, I seriously expect Amazon and Google at some point to turn on the microphones on all Echo and Home devices and make sure that nobody ever says anything outrageous in their private homes. Failing that, report them to the authorities, or better, doxx them with social media mobs.
Next, I seriously expect Amazon and Google at some point to turn on the microphones on all Echo and Home devices and make sure that nobody ever says anything outrageous in their private homes. Failing that, report them to the authorities, or better, doxx them with social media mobs.
I don't use my Home device ever, but its been plugged in for so long. The other day while walking by it, I decided to just unplug it.
Why not? I put a cover over my laptop cam.
Why not? I put a cover over my laptop cam.
[deleted]
Disinformation experts are increasingly concerned with misuse of a private platform called Airvibe, known to be used for many extremist activities including the 9/11 attacks and the Columbine killings. “Airvibe lets domestic terrorists communicate without any moderation whatsoever, completely out of the reach of standard, widely accepted, peer-reviewed trust and safety committees” said Vox news correspondent Casey Newton.
However, new tools for combatting abuse on the Airvibe network are being researched, including implantable vocal modulators and persistent environmental smart home microphones. For parents concerned about what their kids are hearing on Airvibe, CBS News recommends substituting Airvibe time with safe platforms monitored for misinformation like Facebook or Youtube.
However, new tools for combatting abuse on the Airvibe network are being researched, including implantable vocal modulators and persistent environmental smart home microphones. For parents concerned about what their kids are hearing on Airvibe, CBS News recommends substituting Airvibe time with safe platforms monitored for misinformation like Facebook or Youtube.
Airvibe is, apparently, a sex toy.
Well so far it looks like Signal is doing a good job of routing around this damage.
>There are people out there who fundamentally believe that no one should be able to think or speak free from their scrutiny.
I think this is what the Republicans would have you believe, but I think the left extremists are more about simply pursuing people who they believe as toxic to wherever they retreat.
I think this is what the Republicans would have you believe, but I think the left extremists are more about simply pursuing people who they believe as toxic to wherever they retreat.
>no one should be able to think or speak free
Who says that? People, myself included, don't want specific harmful for society groups to be allowed to speak free, not that nobody's allowed to say anything.
Yes, nazis should not be allowed to speak free. And no ramblings about privacy here on HN will ever change my mind.
In fact, I'd be happy to sacrifice my own privacy if we can root out the evil of racism, nazism, terrorism, and other things that absolutely everybody agrees are bad.
That being said, I think the frameworks used to prevent that at the moment have a lot of potential for abuse, especially from private companies. And it's something that should be improved upon, and normal people should have privacy as much as possible.
Who says that? People, myself included, don't want specific harmful for society groups to be allowed to speak free, not that nobody's allowed to say anything.
Yes, nazis should not be allowed to speak free. And no ramblings about privacy here on HN will ever change my mind.
In fact, I'd be happy to sacrifice my own privacy if we can root out the evil of racism, nazism, terrorism, and other things that absolutely everybody agrees are bad.
That being said, I think the frameworks used to prevent that at the moment have a lot of potential for abuse, especially from private companies. And it's something that should be improved upon, and normal people should have privacy as much as possible.
There are no things that "absolutely everyone agrees are bad", kind of by definition.
So, who decides, or is there a cutoff on what percentage of people must believe an idea for it to be allowed to be communicated?
So, who decides, or is there a cutoff on what percentage of people must believe an idea for it to be allowed to be communicated?
Not everything's a programming language where you need to define exact thresholds for something to be either `True` or `False`. I know this is HN, but I don't think we really need an algorithm to tell us nazis are bad, do we?
And as such it doesn't make sense to write down a specific definition like "groups that goals are to harm others" or similar, even though that would cover pretty much everything. Ideally there would be a public organization, not aligned with specific political groups, making the decisions in a transparent way. Or some sort of a body like WHO where countries can take part in. It's a complex topic, that I don't have a perfect solution for.
And as such it doesn't make sense to write down a specific definition like "groups that goals are to harm others" or similar, even though that would cover pretty much everything. Ideally there would be a public organization, not aligned with specific political groups, making the decisions in a transparent way. Or some sort of a body like WHO where countries can take part in. It's a complex topic, that I don't have a perfect solution for.
> I know this is HN, but I don't think we really need an algorithm to tell us nazis are bad, do we?
I don’t need an algorithm to tell myself that nazis are bad.
But once you want to censor other people, you need to come up with an algorithm deciding what’s censorable or not. So… where’s your threshold ?
I don’t need an algorithm to tell myself that nazis are bad.
But once you want to censor other people, you need to come up with an algorithm deciding what’s censorable or not. So… where’s your threshold ?
Any part of nazi ideology should be forbidden in any way, shape, or form.
As to how to recognize it, I think it's easy for humans to do so. And how do we train computers to recognize it? Well, if we can teach it to recognize cars, bikes, etc from photos I'm sure extremist ideology shouldn't be impossible to achieve with some helping hands from people.
And besides, as I said in another comment. I don't have all the answers, just like I don't have an answer on how to teach computers to recognize X in photos flawlessly, but I think this is something we should start working on.
As to how to recognize it, I think it's easy for humans to do so. And how do we train computers to recognize it? Well, if we can teach it to recognize cars, bikes, etc from photos I'm sure extremist ideology shouldn't be impossible to achieve with some helping hands from people.
And besides, as I said in another comment. I don't have all the answers, just like I don't have an answer on how to teach computers to recognize X in photos flawlessly, but I think this is something we should start working on.
> I think [recognizing nazi ideology is] easy for humans to do so.
It isn't, not even when you are one of those who thinks "anyone who disagrees with me must be a nazi"—meaning that in theory you could just train a model with things you like and things you don't like and label the second group with "nazism"—because your opinions can and do shift often too and so the model would become outdated by the month, if not by the day.
> And besides, as I said in another comment. I don't have all the answers
And yet you speak with such certainty, as if you did. On that note, in your first comment you proclaimed that you were willing to sacrifice your privacy, and yet you used an anonymous account to make that declaration.
It isn't, not even when you are one of those who thinks "anyone who disagrees with me must be a nazi"—meaning that in theory you could just train a model with things you like and things you don't like and label the second group with "nazism"—because your opinions can and do shift often too and so the model would become outdated by the month, if not by the day.
> And besides, as I said in another comment. I don't have all the answers
And yet you speak with such certainty, as if you did. On that note, in your first comment you proclaimed that you were willing to sacrifice your privacy, and yet you used an anonymous account to make that declaration.
It's perfectly fine to wish for something without having all the answers - I don't think I should be attacked for that.
People should be allowed to say that they wish to improve something, even if they don't have the exact scientifically proven step by step way to actually implement it. We are allowed to say that wars should end, that people shouldn't die of hunger, and so on - even if we don't have the exact step by step plan on how to implement it that we can share on HN.
And sacrificing my privacy doesn't have to mean that it's open to public, it refers to actually being able to enforce certain rules. If I were to do something that's illegal on HN the authorities would have no problem finding me.
People should be allowed to say that they wish to improve something, even if they don't have the exact scientifically proven step by step way to actually implement it. We are allowed to say that wars should end, that people shouldn't die of hunger, and so on - even if we don't have the exact step by step plan on how to implement it that we can share on HN.
And sacrificing my privacy doesn't have to mean that it's open to public, it refers to actually being able to enforce certain rules. If I were to do something that's illegal on HN the authorities would have no problem finding me.
I made no attack in my comment and I don't appreciate the insinuation.
> People should be allowed to say
Well, you're not going to find disagreement on that area from me; everyone is, or should be, indeed allowed to say anything. As I understood it, you were arguing otherwise.
> We are allowed to say [...] even if we don't have the exact step by step plan on how to implement it that we can share on HN.
And other people are similarly allowed to argue with you on anything you might say if they so choose. That's the point of a free exchange of ideas, I think.
> And sacrificing my privacy doesn't have to mean that it's open to public
But... Something is either public or it's private....
Anyhow, not only you suggested that I was attacking you for no reason, but you also brought up "wars" and "hunger" and I don't particularly understand why, and this now seems like an attempt at equivocation. Hopefully I'm just misinterpreting, but I don't feel like you are trying to argue in good faith.
> People should be allowed to say
Well, you're not going to find disagreement on that area from me; everyone is, or should be, indeed allowed to say anything. As I understood it, you were arguing otherwise.
> We are allowed to say [...] even if we don't have the exact step by step plan on how to implement it that we can share on HN.
And other people are similarly allowed to argue with you on anything you might say if they so choose. That's the point of a free exchange of ideas, I think.
> And sacrificing my privacy doesn't have to mean that it's open to public
But... Something is either public or it's private....
Anyhow, not only you suggested that I was attacking you for no reason, but you also brought up "wars" and "hunger" and I don't particularly understand why, and this now seems like an attempt at equivocation. Hopefully I'm just misinterpreting, but I don't feel like you are trying to argue in good faith.
Cool let's censor animal right activists.
And in case you don't follow, it's because the Nazis were very pro animal rights.
And in case you don't follow, it's because the Nazis were very pro animal rights.
What is a nazi? I might say it's someone who was a member of the Nazi party in Germany during the early 20th century.
You might say it's "groups that goals are to harm others"
Someone else might say it's anyone who doesn't support progressive policies because to do otherwise would cause harm to people, many of which are "marginalized" and "under-represented".
Let's see if we can agree on what a nazi is before we start figuring out what people are allowed to say and think in private.
>Ideally there would be a public organization, not aligned with specific political groups, making the decisions in a transparent way.
Good luck with that.
You might say it's "groups that goals are to harm others"
Someone else might say it's anyone who doesn't support progressive policies because to do otherwise would cause harm to people, many of which are "marginalized" and "under-represented".
Let's see if we can agree on what a nazi is before we start figuring out what people are allowed to say and think in private.
>Ideally there would be a public organization, not aligned with specific political groups, making the decisions in a transparent way.
Good luck with that.
> Ideally there would be a public organization, not aligned with specific political groups, making the decisions in a transparent way.
Like the ministry of truth, huh?
Like the ministry of truth, huh?
Yes, nazis should not be allowed to speak free. And no ramblings about privacy here on HN will ever change my mind.
That's why the left constantly describe anyone who isn't on the left as Nazis, even though they clearly aren't. Free speech requires absolutism - the moment you make an exception of the form, "well ... but not for them" suddenly the term is redefined and huge swathes of people are being dumped in that bucket regardless of reason or evidence.
I'd be happy to sacrifice my own privacy if we can root out the evil of racism, nazism, terrorism, and other things that absolutely everybody agrees are bad.
The people who talk about racism the most are by far the most racist people in society. They manage to be racist whilst claiming to hate racism by redefining it to not be about race, but perceived "power" where "power" is entirely subjective. Hence they can hate on white people whilst claiming to be fighting racism.
Again, the lesson is simple. All free speech must be protected to the absolute end. The moment you make an exception, leftists will en-masse attempt to redefine the word used to delimit the exception to encompass anyone who isn't on their side.
The right isn't above this sort of behaviour either, see the abuse of "terrorist" to mean random people in Afghanistan in the first years of the millenium. But I haven't seen much of that lately. As of 2021 this behaviour is definitely more common on the other side of the hall.
That's why the left constantly describe anyone who isn't on the left as Nazis, even though they clearly aren't. Free speech requires absolutism - the moment you make an exception of the form, "well ... but not for them" suddenly the term is redefined and huge swathes of people are being dumped in that bucket regardless of reason or evidence.
I'd be happy to sacrifice my own privacy if we can root out the evil of racism, nazism, terrorism, and other things that absolutely everybody agrees are bad.
The people who talk about racism the most are by far the most racist people in society. They manage to be racist whilst claiming to hate racism by redefining it to not be about race, but perceived "power" where "power" is entirely subjective. Hence they can hate on white people whilst claiming to be fighting racism.
Again, the lesson is simple. All free speech must be protected to the absolute end. The moment you make an exception, leftists will en-masse attempt to redefine the word used to delimit the exception to encompass anyone who isn't on their side.
The right isn't above this sort of behaviour either, see the abuse of "terrorist" to mean random people in Afghanistan in the first years of the millenium. But I haven't seen much of that lately. As of 2021 this behaviour is definitely more common on the other side of the hall.
Just so I'm clear, because English isn't my first language, saying that people shouldn't be allowed to advocate for complete extermination of complete groups of people based on their skin color or similar, somehow makes me a racist?
Besides, the whole "free speech must be protected to the absolute end" is such a stupid thing to insist on. Here in Germany that's not the most sacred thing, do you know what the article 1 of the german basic law is? "Human dignity shall be inviolable." - and guess what, we're not some dystopian racist hellhole.
Besides, the whole "free speech must be protected to the absolute end" is such a stupid thing to insist on. Here in Germany that's not the most sacred thing, do you know what the article 1 of the german basic law is? "Human dignity shall be inviolable." - and guess what, we're not some dystopian racist hellhole.
Literally nobody in the modern world is advocating for the "complete extermination of complete groups of people based on skin colour" with the possible exception of China in Xinjiang (although I guess that's based on religion rather than race). If they were, you would be right to identify them and call them racist.
The way these terms are actually used in 2021 has nothing to do with the classical definitions. Rather, Twitter warriors describe anyone who votes for Trump as a racist Nazi. The terms have become unmoored from their original definitions. And as a German I am sure you're aware that this problem of redefinition happens there too.
Here in Germany that's not the most sacred thing, do you know what the article 1 of the german basic law is? "Human dignity shall be inviolable."
German law is crap then. That statement is vacuous, means nothing and can be interpreted in whatever way the government wishes to whatever end the government wants. The US First Amendment is vastly superior and I'm not even American: it is crisp, fairly specific and applies to a very small group of people (Congress).
As for not a dystopian racist hellhole, no, Germany isn't. Neither is the USA, so using Germany to try and make a point about free speech doesn't seem very relevant. China is such a place, if the reports of concentration camps for Muslims in the west are true, and they also have no free speech. So the correlation between free speech and being non racist seems pretty good.
The way these terms are actually used in 2021 has nothing to do with the classical definitions. Rather, Twitter warriors describe anyone who votes for Trump as a racist Nazi. The terms have become unmoored from their original definitions. And as a German I am sure you're aware that this problem of redefinition happens there too.
Here in Germany that's not the most sacred thing, do you know what the article 1 of the german basic law is? "Human dignity shall be inviolable."
German law is crap then. That statement is vacuous, means nothing and can be interpreted in whatever way the government wishes to whatever end the government wants. The US First Amendment is vastly superior and I'm not even American: it is crisp, fairly specific and applies to a very small group of people (Congress).
As for not a dystopian racist hellhole, no, Germany isn't. Neither is the USA, so using Germany to try and make a point about free speech doesn't seem very relevant. China is such a place, if the reports of concentration camps for Muslims in the west are true, and they also have no free speech. So the correlation between free speech and being non racist seems pretty good.
Ok. I'm not sure that "speaking free" is a useful concept. I think it's more useful to discuss controls on public vs private speech.
I believe that two consenting "nazis" should be able to speak privately on e2e platforms, mainly because this is the same mechanism that will let consenting marxists, christians, muslims, satanists, pro-life advocates, pro choice advocates... escape mainstream outrage.
I realise this is a security risk, in the same way that not having microphones everywhere in public spaces is a security risk.
Child exploitation and plotting terrorist acts are the "biggest hills to die on" in this space, but investigators have always had "targeted" means to deal with these without resorting to mass surveillance. I believe existing powers are adequate to investigate these crimes.
I'm also generally ok with mainstream censorship of broadcast or social media. Public speech is a different animal.
I believe that two consenting "nazis" should be able to speak privately on e2e platforms, mainly because this is the same mechanism that will let consenting marxists, christians, muslims, satanists, pro-life advocates, pro choice advocates... escape mainstream outrage.
I realise this is a security risk, in the same way that not having microphones everywhere in public spaces is a security risk.
Child exploitation and plotting terrorist acts are the "biggest hills to die on" in this space, but investigators have always had "targeted" means to deal with these without resorting to mass surveillance. I believe existing powers are adequate to investigate these crimes.
I'm also generally ok with mainstream censorship of broadcast or social media. Public speech is a different animal.
Again I lament the falling respect for and understanding of free speech as a principle that helps us all. Only when communication between two willing parties is unhindered is it even possible to build a just world. The power to clamp down on voluntary communication is a power no authority should ever be trusted with, because there are no examples in the history of mankind where that power is only used for good - arguably there can be no such examples, what with power being a vector for corruption.
Back when radio was the only mass medium that you could reach entire populations on, would you have argued that anyone with a POV should be able to broadcast over the air, "because free speech" ?
Back when there were only 3 TV networks that reached the whole of the US, would you have argued that anyone with a POV should be able to get some time (how long?) on one of those networks, "because free speech" ?
Free speech never meant the ability to demand the use of any mechanism or any resource to reach a real or hypothetical audience. Changing the definition because lots of people chat on social media doesn't cut it, I think.
Back when there were only 3 TV networks that reached the whole of the US, would you have argued that anyone with a POV should be able to get some time (how long?) on one of those networks, "because free speech" ?
Free speech never meant the ability to demand the use of any mechanism or any resource to reach a real or hypothetical audience. Changing the definition because lots of people chat on social media doesn't cut it, I think.
You are badly misunderstanding the situation. A world with 3 TV networks is a world of limited airtime, so of course people will not give their slots up freely for others. That is not the world we are in now. It costs no "space" to let messages of any kind go through your platform. It costs (nearly) no bandwidth. It is generally profitable. The only reason messages are being restricted is because those who control the platform don't like them. A TV network wouldn't give airtime to any old wacko because it was a limited resource. Signal choosing not to give use of their platform to somebody they don't like is categorically different.
> You are badly misunderstanding the situation.
Those radio and TV networks were, before the internet, the only way you could broadcast to the nation, or the city, or the region or whatever. If you wanted to reach many people and not in print, you had to be on them. As you note, this is no longer the case.
The resource you want access to is, variously, either the internet itself or (e.g.) Signal's audience. You don't need Signal for the former, and you don't have any constitutional or moral right to the latter.
Those radio and TV networks were, before the internet, the only way you could broadcast to the nation, or the city, or the region or whatever. If you wanted to reach many people and not in print, you had to be on them. As you note, this is no longer the case.
The resource you want access to is, variously, either the internet itself or (e.g.) Signal's audience. You don't need Signal for the former, and you don't have any constitutional or moral right to the latter.
You prove to still be misunderstanding. Firstly in that "Signal's Audience" is not a thing under contention - it's willing parties who are already both using Signal being prevented from using that tool to talk about [x] with one another. It's constraining communication by content once you've already granted someone the tools that is the problem.
Even so, I agree you have neither a constitutional nor a moral right to anything of Signal's in any case. And yet, the world would be a better place - for all people, Signal's staff and shareholders included - if they gave it freely. Nobody is obligated to spend their own time or effort to improve the world, but if we want the world to be a better place then somebody has to.
The more accessible unfettered communication is, the better the world is able to become. Full stop. Restrained communication is less capable of improving the world, because restrained communication is less capable of changing the world at all, because those invested in the status quo have incentive to restrain communication which could make change.
Even so, I agree you have neither a constitutional nor a moral right to anything of Signal's in any case. And yet, the world would be a better place - for all people, Signal's staff and shareholders included - if they gave it freely. Nobody is obligated to spend their own time or effort to improve the world, but if we want the world to be a better place then somebody has to.
The more accessible unfettered communication is, the better the world is able to become. Full stop. Restrained communication is less capable of improving the world, because restrained communication is less capable of changing the world at all, because those invested in the status quo have incentive to restrain communication which could make change.
Firstly, Signal is completely irrelevant here: they cannot censor based on message content, and have (for now) said that they will not (based, presumably on the fact that they cannot).
Secondly, in the case of a company such as Twitter, which can censor based on content, they are free to say that they think that the world is a better place if they do indeed play that role. You may disagree with them. I might even disagree with them too. But they are free to take that position, and I would contend that requiring them to follow your instincts on this is, in the long, a greater harm than figuring out net neutrality rules for the wiring (so to speak).
It will be a much better world where someone kicked off Twitter can move to Twotter or Trotter or Titter or Tatter, than one where Twitter is told what to do by governments.
Secondly, in the case of a company such as Twitter, which can censor based on content, they are free to say that they think that the world is a better place if they do indeed play that role. You may disagree with them. I might even disagree with them too. But they are free to take that position, and I would contend that requiring them to follow your instincts on this is, in the long, a greater harm than figuring out net neutrality rules for the wiring (so to speak).
It will be a much better world where someone kicked off Twitter can move to Twotter or Trotter or Titter or Tatter, than one where Twitter is told what to do by governments.
Firstly, this article and the discussions on this page are about Signal, it's hardly irrelevant. For the particular case of the company Signal, there are many actors claiming that censorship is needed. Signal for now disagrees, but even on this page you'll find people that support that. Just because the way Signal is implemented today resists the model doesn't mean that's a guarantee into the future.
Secondly, there is no reason we cannot have it both ways. A single communications company with content-neutral policies is helping the world more than one with content-sensitive policies. Two communications companies with content-neutral policies in competition with one another may be better yet, but that does not make Twitter choosing to censor its users the right thing for them to do. I have not said the government should tell Twitter what to do, only that they should choose not to censor because that makes the world a better place.
There is a growing contingent of people, especially younger people, who do not understand how free communication underlies the ability to make any change at all. Who do not see that creating the tools to censor conversations harms the future. They see immediate benefits in clamping down on this or that harm (temporarily ignoring that they're making themselves the arbiters of right and wrong and giving them the power to declare what is or is not a harm in the first place) but not grasping that they will not be in control of those tools in perpetuity.
Secondly, there is no reason we cannot have it both ways. A single communications company with content-neutral policies is helping the world more than one with content-sensitive policies. Two communications companies with content-neutral policies in competition with one another may be better yet, but that does not make Twitter choosing to censor its users the right thing for them to do. I have not said the government should tell Twitter what to do, only that they should choose not to censor because that makes the world a better place.
There is a growing contingent of people, especially younger people, who do not understand how free communication underlies the ability to make any change at all. Who do not see that creating the tools to censor conversations harms the future. They see immediate benefits in clamping down on this or that harm (temporarily ignoring that they're making themselves the arbiters of right and wrong and giving them the power to declare what is or is not a harm in the first place) but not grasping that they will not be in control of those tools in perpetuity.
There is no battle, one employee may have left. Also this is completely horrifying. Signal with a content policy?! It’s end to end encrypted. Wtf are people trying to do here.
Right, one guy who isn't even that sure about his own beliefs. I was worried when I read the headline, but the more important thing is that Acton is screening employees to ensure they actually agree with the goals of the organisation. He is clearly able to articulate his own philosophical position on this (focus on bad people, not neutral technologies), and Signal is financially totally dependent on him, which suggests that Signal's philosophy will remain aligned with Acton for the forseeable future.
The primary risk to Signal at the moment seems to come from Google and Apple, not internal employee dissent.
The primary risk to Signal at the moment seems to come from Google and Apple, not internal employee dissent.
A nonsense FUD article. Bad actors will always find some way to communicate, and the intelligence failed even when they were doing so openly on mainstream networks. Go crack that nut first before breaking everybody's encryption, the consequences of which are far more detrimental for a free society.
Also, it does not hurt to point out that unlike Facebook, which is wired for clicks and "user engagement", Signal does not spread or profit from hate speech and disinformation, which is what got us into recent developments, but rather works like a private chat. So perhaps we have already made some progress by having these people switch over--their recruiting is likely to be severely affected if they rely on Signal for it.
Also, it does not hurt to point out that unlike Facebook, which is wired for clicks and "user engagement", Signal does not spread or profit from hate speech and disinformation, which is what got us into recent developments, but rather works like a private chat. So perhaps we have already made some progress by having these people switch over--their recruiting is likely to be severely affected if they rely on Signal for it.
> “The response was: if and when people start abusing Signal or doing things that we think are terrible, we'll say something,” said Bernstein, who was in the meeting, conducted over video chat. “But until something is a reality, Moxie's position is he's not going to deal with it.”
> Bernstein (disclosure: a former colleague of mine at Vox Media), added, “You could see a lot of jaws dropping. That’s not a strategy — that’s just hoping things don’t go bad.”
So what's the alternative, exactly, when you are supposed to keep things encrypted between users? Either you are a conduit or a publisher, you have to choose.
> Bernstein (disclosure: a former colleague of mine at Vox Media), added, “You could see a lot of jaws dropping. That’s not a strategy — that’s just hoping things don’t go bad.”
So what's the alternative, exactly, when you are supposed to keep things encrypted between users? Either you are a conduit or a publisher, you have to choose.
They could put virality limiters on content, for example limiting the number of times a message can be forwarded. WhatsApp is known to have done this. They could also let people report users (and unmask their content) and ban them if they get enough reports. They could also push out clientside hash checking of controversial content once they’ve received reports and stop it from propagating there - just get the database from GIFCT. If group membership can be seen by others in the group, they could also take reports of group membership from NGO or government observers and ban everyone in the group. One does not simply chat online.
Yep, they could pull a Whatsapp.
[deleted]
I'd start by keeping groups private and invite-from-contacts only.
Then Signal is no more culpable than any other chat service over which OTR or similar could operate.
Then Signal is no more culpable than any other chat service over which OTR or similar could operate.
There's a chance that a group of people will walk out into the woods and talk about bad stuff without anyone able to hear them. We should make forests illegal.
The fundamental difference being: no human actively created forests hence no one could be held responsible (legally or morally) for what's being done there.
Edit: wording.
Edit: wording.
So if it was a human reforestation effort then we can hold the people that planted the trees responsible for what happened?
What about the park rangers maintaining the forests?
What about the park rangers maintaining the forests?
I wondered when the censors would come for Signal.
I'm glad to see Signal is aiming to just be privacy-oriented law-abiding infrastructure.
I'm glad to see Signal is aiming to just be privacy-oriented law-abiding infrastructure.
[deleted]
How can one even develop a content-policy for something like Signal? Isn't supposed to be impossible for them to ever see your messages anyway?
I dumped signal less over the data collection they've started doing and more for the fact that they've been less than transparent about it. Nearly a year ago their forums were filled with objections, security concerns, and questions and for months they went ignored. When they finally made setting a pin optional they were equally unclear that it would just set a random one for you and that this didn't prevent your data from being uploaded to the cloud.
I took it as a sign that they were telling us not to trust them as clearly as they were allowed. For secure communications I'm using Jami now and I've been very impressed. For SMS/MMS in general I'm still looking. I've tried a few alternatives and frankly I'm not really happy with any of them.
I took it as a sign that they were telling us not to trust them as clearly as they were allowed. For secure communications I'm using Jami now and I've been very impressed. For SMS/MMS in general I'm still looking. I've tried a few alternatives and frankly I'm not really happy with any of them.
They’re trying to unwind Signal from phone numbers. Also who uses SMS anymore?:)
The phone number is not even the worst part really. Signal's privacy policy says they don't collect and store sensitive info, but how is a list of everyone you've been in contact with not sensitive?
Sadly I've had very little luck getting my family to move to Signal and less luck getting them to use Jami. The bulk of my communications are unsecured SMS/MMS. It's such a basic function that I'm surprised open source solutions aren't better. Whatever they've become Signal had a pretty great interface.
Sadly I've had very little luck getting my family to move to Signal and less luck getting them to use Jami. The bulk of my communications are unsecured SMS/MMS. It's such a basic function that I'm surprised open source solutions aren't better. Whatever they've become Signal had a pretty great interface.
it’s hard for me to read something like this and believe you aren’t being deliberately misleading.
All this stuff is only stored in an encrypted form that signal never has the keys for.
The fact that's encrypted doesn't matter. There are a number of potential issues with collecting it in the first place. You can see some of the security concerns which were brought up on their forums here: https://community.signalusers.org/t/proper-secure-value-secu...
As far as I know, they encrypt the data in sgx enclaves which are notoriously leaky.
They've been trying since 2014. Somehow it never seems to happen.
That's because (secure) messaging using phone numbers as identifiers is literally the core feature of the product. Signal was marketed from day one as a drop in SMS replacement. Initially it even used SMS as the transport for encrypted messages. It was even originally called "TextSecure". This is why I have always found the attacks on it using phone numbers to be amusing.
In an earlier era (or even today), how would this be different from asking the telephone company to drop calls that are being made by/to "bad actors". Without a warrant compelling them to do so.
One difference is tech companies, including "foundations" like Signal, are not federally regulated in the way that telephone companies are.
One difference is tech companies, including "foundations" like Signal, are not federally regulated in the way that telephone companies are.
The mechanisms used in the earlier era - law, common sense, etc., have gone out of the window now that anyone can weaponize a social media mob into harassing targets into submission.
For change to exist as a possibility in this reality we must have privacy. Freedom of thought, of expression, of association are all predicated on privacy as the space to construct epiphanies into narrative.
Absent privacy, change in our world becomes impossible.
Absent privacy, change in our world becomes impossible.
Oh, dear.
I really can't believe it. I can see any commercial application like What's App or FB or TWTTR being coy about speech and not having the privacy of their users in mind, and bending to prevailing winds --not having fast principles.
But Signal? Signal? Do these idealist engineers not envision the comms that can happen on e-e encrypted systems? They don't think criminals, hooligans, spies, unsavory people, sex criminals, drugs dealers, arms dealers, etc. would use the network?
Oh, but boy, wait, what if people in whose politics we don't believe in use it? Oh, noes. In this case we have to be careful and raise concerns --but those other things, no, that's why we believe in freedom of speech and e-e encryption.
Sigh.
They believe in things, until they don't. Which means they don't truly believe in the principles they said they believed in.
What's that old saw, I believe in freedom of speech for the people I agree with?
Moxie should get up there next time and say: "If you only believe this product should be used by people you agree with, then you took the wrong job".
It's like the Komsomol have come to town.
I really can't believe it. I can see any commercial application like What's App or FB or TWTTR being coy about speech and not having the privacy of their users in mind, and bending to prevailing winds --not having fast principles.
But Signal? Signal? Do these idealist engineers not envision the comms that can happen on e-e encrypted systems? They don't think criminals, hooligans, spies, unsavory people, sex criminals, drugs dealers, arms dealers, etc. would use the network?
Oh, but boy, wait, what if people in whose politics we don't believe in use it? Oh, noes. In this case we have to be careful and raise concerns --but those other things, no, that's why we believe in freedom of speech and e-e encryption.
Sigh.
They believe in things, until they don't. Which means they don't truly believe in the principles they said they believed in.
What's that old saw, I believe in freedom of speech for the people I agree with?
Moxie should get up there next time and say: "If you only believe this product should be used by people you agree with, then you took the wrong job".
It's like the Komsomol have come to town.
This was my thinking as well. Their concerns were ridiculous and echoed what we heard a couple years ago when politicians were looking for mandatory back doors. What did they think the point of encryption was other than to allow people to have discussions without interference. I get it, I’m not a fan of the groups they’re discussing by a long shot, but I’m also not working at a non-profit dedicated to providing the world with safe, encrypted, messaging.
I mean, people's views on things should change based on evidence. This isn't 'i disagree with their politics so I need to change the platform to silence them'. There was an insurrection on the US capitol due to extremists and online communication tools were a big part of this (though it was social media mostly). Let's not abstract away what happened to downplay how serious the event was. I don't know what signal should do, but it's strange to be surprised that given a new understanding of the world people would revisit their principles. That's what people should do. People should not be intransigent.
Also, personally I don't think signal should compromise the quality of their product though. E2E is too important.
Also, personally I don't think signal should compromise the quality of their product though. E2E is too important.
Don't call a bunch of selfie taking hooligans insurretionists. That's not how insurrections happen. It's a media blown overreaction because it helps their narrative. Look at how insurrections happen elsewhere. It's not done by selfie taking shamen.
I mean WTF do they think? Only "their" revolutionaries can use the app, but others can't?
It's like TOR. It can be used by dissidents but it can also be used by enemies of the state, yet the state believes on balance TOR does good.
I mean WTF do they think? Only "their" revolutionaries can use the app, but others can't?
It's like TOR. It can be used by dissidents but it can also be used by enemies of the state, yet the state believes on balance TOR does good.
> Don't call a bunch of selfie taking hooligans insurretionists
Just because it's a stupid insurrection doesn't mean it's not an insurrection.
Just because it's a stupid insurrection doesn't mean it's not an insurrection.
Insurrection is a very vague word, any kind of violent protest against authorities can be called an insurrection. Funny the summer insurrections don't get to have that label.
The Black Lives Matter protests only get to be called insurrections if their goal was to supplant those authorities or forcefully override their will. Marching to put pressure on authorities to enact reforms is basically the opposite of an insurrection. Without the authorities the protests are pointless.
And look I can only speak for my city since I was there but calling the protests violent is technically true but misleading in the way “there was a fight” is misleading in zero tolerance school policies. Being at the front of the protest was terrifying because the police were itching for any excuse to escalate and purposely obstructing people, grabbing and pushing the crowd daring someone to push back. Tensions are already high and the police acting like schoolyard bullies doesn’t help, and finally some guy finally breaks with a “get your hands off me” they get pulled down to the ground and start getting beaten, people step in to defend the guy and pull the cops off him, more cops rush in and boom — “violence.”
The shit at the Capitol was absolutely moronic and they had basically zero chance of achieving their goal but the intent was there and that’s really what matters.
And look I can only speak for my city since I was there but calling the protests violent is technically true but misleading in the way “there was a fight” is misleading in zero tolerance school policies. Being at the front of the protest was terrifying because the police were itching for any excuse to escalate and purposely obstructing people, grabbing and pushing the crowd daring someone to push back. Tensions are already high and the police acting like schoolyard bullies doesn’t help, and finally some guy finally breaks with a “get your hands off me” they get pulled down to the ground and start getting beaten, people step in to defend the guy and pull the cops off him, more cops rush in and boom — “violence.”
The shit at the Capitol was absolutely moronic and they had basically zero chance of achieving their goal but the intent was there and that’s really what matters.
> The Black Lives Matter protests only get to be called insurrections if their goal was to supplant those authorities or forcefully override their will.
So, you mean like hypothetically taking over 6 blocks of downtown Seattle and declaring it an autonomous zone?
So, you mean like hypothetically taking over 6 blocks of downtown Seattle and declaring it an autonomous zone?
Look I wasn't there and the information about it is extremely two sided. People who liked/supported it said that it was basically a large-scale sit-in like OccupyWallSt which seems to match the photos of it and I think lives firmly on the side of protest. Otherwise more usual protests like street marches, blocking access to government buildings, or occupying streets with cars also become insurrection which doesn't make much sense.
Not even trying to play, if the Capitol shit was actually a sit-in a la #OccupyTheCapitol then I would be here defending their right to protest.
Not even trying to play, if the Capitol shit was actually a sit-in a la #OccupyTheCapitol then I would be here defending their right to protest.
FWIW, I live down the street from where that zone was. It was indeed a large-scale sit-in-like protest, and cropped up in short term response due to SPD's insane tactics of tear-gassing the surrounding neighborhood before pulling out due to pissing everyone off.
I find that everyone who comments about this zone on here is not actually from Seattle, and just firing off the same talking points.
I find that everyone who comments about this zone on here is not actually from Seattle, and just firing off the same talking points.
Mmmm, yes, let's compare:
- A group storming the capitol of the US after being fed a steady stream of lies regarding an election result, with the President himself pushing them to go.
versus
- A group protesting after yet-another-person-of-color was murdered, pushing for equality and a check on police brutality.
Totally checks out. ;P
- A group storming the capitol of the US after being fed a steady stream of lies regarding an election result, with the President himself pushing them to go.
versus
- A group protesting after yet-another-person-of-color was murdered, pushing for equality and a check on police brutality.
Totally checks out. ;P
You're comparing the extremest fringe of one protest to the nonviolent core of the other. We have to compare fringe to fringe here.
The extremest fringe of the summer protests was burning cop cars and and a courthouse in one instance. There was even an area that declared itself an Autonomous Zone. That is insurrection. Not going to achieve anything though so everyone ignored it at the time. It wasn't any more of a problem than the Capitol riots.
The extremest fringe of the summer protests was burning cop cars and and a courthouse in one instance. There was even an area that declared itself an Autonomous Zone. That is insurrection. Not going to achieve anything though so everyone ignored it at the time. It wasn't any more of a problem than the Capitol riots.
>You're comparing the extremest fringe of one protest to the nonviolent core of the other.
I am not; I'm comparing the movements that led to each situation. You want to compare extremists, but the extremists are not the point - they'll always be there. The intent of the movements that caused these actions to happen are what matters, and it's fairly clear which side each falls on.
Many of those instances of violence in the summer protests were reactionary and driven by police exercising unnecessary force, which has been documented in troves of video.
Those who participated in the DC incident on the 6th were driven by a stream of misinformation, which has _also_ been well documented at this point.
One wanted to believe in conspiracy theories and support a failure of a President, going so far as to listen to him to attempt to overthrow the government. The other one just wants equality.
>There was even an area that declared itself an Autonomous Zone.
Yes, I live down the street from it. Having experienced it and lived around it, I would not classify it as anything remotely close to what was seen on January 6th in DC.
I am not; I'm comparing the movements that led to each situation. You want to compare extremists, but the extremists are not the point - they'll always be there. The intent of the movements that caused these actions to happen are what matters, and it's fairly clear which side each falls on.
Many of those instances of violence in the summer protests were reactionary and driven by police exercising unnecessary force, which has been documented in troves of video.
Those who participated in the DC incident on the 6th were driven by a stream of misinformation, which has _also_ been well documented at this point.
One wanted to believe in conspiracy theories and support a failure of a President, going so far as to listen to him to attempt to overthrow the government. The other one just wants equality.
>There was even an area that declared itself an Autonomous Zone.
Yes, I live down the street from it. Having experienced it and lived around it, I would not classify it as anything remotely close to what was seen on January 6th in DC.
I get the impression you're too smart to change your opinion on this. That's not meant sarcastically; smart people are able to rationalize away even the most extreme cognitive dissonance. I don't blame you. Looking at a situation from a viewpoint opposed to one's own is quite literally physiologically painful, and who needs that.
There's also nothing to be gained by doing so. Most likely your family and friends and co-workers, given your area, are of a similar mindset, so there's no social capital to be gained. It's unlikely that it will net you a better job or higher paying salary, or make your life easier in any way.
Seeing other viewpoints can help with compassion, though, and that might be a necessary ingredient for a society. Not that that's your concern: an individual is negligible to the behavior of the collective.
There's also nothing to be gained by doing so. Most likely your family and friends and co-workers, given your area, are of a similar mindset, so there's no social capital to be gained. It's unlikely that it will net you a better job or higher paying salary, or make your life easier in any way.
Seeing other viewpoints can help with compassion, though, and that might be a necessary ingredient for a society. Not that that's your concern: an individual is negligible to the behavior of the collective.
This comment is super weird, and while it's a fun attempt at a subtle insult, it just kind of falls apart.
Why would I ever change my opinion to gain social capital, or make my life easier? I base it off of documented events; we've all lived the same past year whether people want to believe it or not.
It's simply not rationalizing when an individual looks at these two events that are clearly different in buildup, intent, and outcome, and then chooses to not view them the same.
Trying to bait someone with this stuff feels really old school internet, but not in an effective way.
Why would I ever change my opinion to gain social capital, or make my life easier? I base it off of documented events; we've all lived the same past year whether people want to believe it or not.
It's simply not rationalizing when an individual looks at these two events that are clearly different in buildup, intent, and outcome, and then chooses to not view them the same.
Trying to bait someone with this stuff feels really old school internet, but not in an effective way.
It's not an attempt at a subtle insult. It's not meant to be insulting at all. At most, it's a personal reflection on certainty. I guess maybe it acts as something of a Rorschach test, but that wasn't the intent either.
We could probably have an interesting conversation in person, maybe even a meaningful one; but on the internet that's pretty much impossible. I certainly don't expect to change your mind, or even to convince you there's a possibility you might be wrong. You don't seem to have anything particularly new or insighful to add, so it's unlikely my opinions will shift. So there's not really a point in having a discussion, at least not in a format where we need to type out long comments and do point by point rebuttals.
And in any case other people are already doing the point my point contentious debate thing with you, and it doesn't seem to have much of an effect on anyone so it's a pretty obvious waste of time.
You seem the argumentative sort though so feel free to respond to this and explain why I'm wrong about whatever. I'll be drinking scotch and I do recommend that instead, but whatever you decide have a nice Tuesday night.
We could probably have an interesting conversation in person, maybe even a meaningful one; but on the internet that's pretty much impossible. I certainly don't expect to change your mind, or even to convince you there's a possibility you might be wrong. You don't seem to have anything particularly new or insighful to add, so it's unlikely my opinions will shift. So there's not really a point in having a discussion, at least not in a format where we need to type out long comments and do point by point rebuttals.
And in any case other people are already doing the point my point contentious debate thing with you, and it doesn't seem to have much of an effect on anyone so it's a pretty obvious waste of time.
You seem the argumentative sort though so feel free to respond to this and explain why I'm wrong about whatever. I'll be drinking scotch and I do recommend that instead, but whatever you decide have a nice Tuesday night.
The movement that led to the Capitol riot was a misguided but fundamentally patriotic belief that there needs to be more of a focus on ensuring free and fair elections. You can disagree that a protest was needed and you can impugn the motivations of the organisers, but that is what the bulk of the protesters thought they were protesting.
A government installed by the people is a principle that compares on similar footing to equality.
A government installed by the people is a principle that compares on similar footing to equality.
Free and fair elections are important, but there is no evidence to suggest that the 2020 elections were not free and fair.
It was weaponized patriotism, not misguided patriotism.
It was weaponized patriotism, not misguided patriotism.
"That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did...
You deserved it."
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did...
You deserved it."
They killed a police officer. Brutally assaulted others. Stole computers after breaking in.
>Don't call a bunch of selfie taking hooligans insurretionists
They had knives and zip ties and intended to take hostages. The fact that they are incompetent does not obviate their intent.
They had knives and zip ties and intended to take hostages. The fact that they are incompetent does not obviate their intent.
> There was an insurrection on the US capitol due to extremists and online communication tools were a big part of this
...which was handily rebuffed. You're overstating it.
The question is: How much liberty and privacy are you willing to give up to prevent that from happening again?
For me, the answer is zero. The next batch of idiots are welcome to come and take their turn getting arrested next week. It is offensive and disturbing yes, but not a real threat to democracy. And there's no 8chan in prison, so this problem will sort itself out eventually.
...which was handily rebuffed. You're overstating it.
The question is: How much liberty and privacy are you willing to give up to prevent that from happening again?
For me, the answer is zero. The next batch of idiots are welcome to come and take their turn getting arrested next week. It is offensive and disturbing yes, but not a real threat to democracy. And there's no 8chan in prison, so this problem will sort itself out eventually.
Hasn't the internet and communication tools like signal been used for many years now to coordinate far worse attacks? Not to mention the various crimes it will inevitably be used for. Surely the people involved are aware it will inevitably be used for child pornography, sex trafficking, arms trade, and a litany of other crimes.
It's just the nature of true encryption. You take both the good and the bad, we've known this for a while now.
It's just the nature of true encryption. You take both the good and the bad, we've known this for a while now.
> There was an insurrection on the US capitol due to extremists and online communication tools were a big part of this
Would you be taking this principled stance if this was an insurrection on the Iranian parliament?
Would you be taking this principled stance if this was an insurrection on the Iranian parliament?
I'm very sympathetic to the view that emergency action was justified at the time in response to the urgent threat. But if we're talking about permanently refactoring the principles of free speech, I'm not sure that a single bad event is really enough evidence to make any decisions on.
It's clear that some people have done some bad things, and they used the internet (mostly facebook but whatever) to communicate.
There are 2 approaches to fixing this.
1 is to undercut the roots of radicalism and polarization. I would say to do that by radically redistributing wealth and democratizing government. Yes, the capitol stormers mostly weren't poor, but Trumpism is in large part a reaction of horror by small business owners at being squeezed by monopolies, and what popular support they have would evaporate if the government fixed things instead of being run as the public relations firm and personal military of all the large companies put together.
2 is to instead double down on physical repression (by funding police) and digital repression of dissenting viewpoints by abolishing any right to privacy. This seems to be the direction we're heading. It already happened in large part under the last few presidents but Signal is obviously in the crosshairs.
I'm not mad at you. But I am frustrated that this obviously bad approach has support - of not dealing with root causes and material problems, but committing to suppression of beliefs on both the right and left that are obviously a reaction to those root causes.
There are 2 approaches to fixing this.
1 is to undercut the roots of radicalism and polarization. I would say to do that by radically redistributing wealth and democratizing government. Yes, the capitol stormers mostly weren't poor, but Trumpism is in large part a reaction of horror by small business owners at being squeezed by monopolies, and what popular support they have would evaporate if the government fixed things instead of being run as the public relations firm and personal military of all the large companies put together.
2 is to instead double down on physical repression (by funding police) and digital repression of dissenting viewpoints by abolishing any right to privacy. This seems to be the direction we're heading. It already happened in large part under the last few presidents but Signal is obviously in the crosshairs.
I'm not mad at you. But I am frustrated that this obviously bad approach has support - of not dealing with root causes and material problems, but committing to suppression of beliefs on both the right and left that are obviously a reaction to those root causes.
[deleted]
I agree with you.
All I see here is evidence of a sensible team pondering about the future of their product in light of recent events, both the potential for their platform to be abused, and let’s face it, the potential for their platform to disappear off the face of the internet if it becomes the platform of choice for an unsavoury audience. Neither of which they have much control over.
I would be more worried if people at Signal were not thinking about this, debating the issues and reflecting on the direction of their product.
I thought the article (despite the over-egged headline) was interesting and not particularly hysterical.
What I don’t see here is anyone actually suggesting they compromise E2E or any of the fundamentals of the product that we like in Signal.
I feel strongly that Signal needs to stay moving in the direction it’s heading - which is to be a no-bullshit, secure, E2E encrypted, reliable and open platform with none of the data-hoarding of its rivals.
I do not see any harm in Signal self-reflecting in particular in light of recent events.
A “head in the sand” approach seems worse. I’m surprised by the cynical comments here so far. How about we take a charitable read of this?
All I see here is evidence of a sensible team pondering about the future of their product in light of recent events, both the potential for their platform to be abused, and let’s face it, the potential for their platform to disappear off the face of the internet if it becomes the platform of choice for an unsavoury audience. Neither of which they have much control over.
I would be more worried if people at Signal were not thinking about this, debating the issues and reflecting on the direction of their product.
I thought the article (despite the over-egged headline) was interesting and not particularly hysterical.
What I don’t see here is anyone actually suggesting they compromise E2E or any of the fundamentals of the product that we like in Signal.
I feel strongly that Signal needs to stay moving in the direction it’s heading - which is to be a no-bullshit, secure, E2E encrypted, reliable and open platform with none of the data-hoarding of its rivals.
I do not see any harm in Signal self-reflecting in particular in light of recent events.
A “head in the sand” approach seems worse. I’m surprised by the cynical comments here so far. How about we take a charitable read of this?
> "both the potential for their platform to be abused, and let’s face it, the potential for their platform to disappear off the face of the internet..."
The potential? Seriously? There is no question a service like this will be abused (Let's ask Erdogan this question). No serious criminal is going to NOT consider using Signal as a comms medium. People who need to evade snooping will use it. People who need privacy will use it.
As for the other. For this product, either you believe in your principles or you don't. It was the whole premise of the product. Without it, there is no need for it. There are "better" (easier) alternatives.
It's like building a back-up product and saying, you know, we could save costs by not always reliably having the expected data. Yes, true. But why have your product in the first place?
The potential? Seriously? There is no question a service like this will be abused (Let's ask Erdogan this question). No serious criminal is going to NOT consider using Signal as a comms medium. People who need to evade snooping will use it. People who need privacy will use it.
As for the other. For this product, either you believe in your principles or you don't. It was the whole premise of the product. Without it, there is no need for it. There are "better" (easier) alternatives.
It's like building a back-up product and saying, you know, we could save costs by not always reliably having the expected data. Yes, true. But why have your product in the first place?
The point is that it's good for a company to be willing to discuss these things. If Signal had a culture where the principles and direction of the company are beyond discussion, that'd be a problem - both because it would make Signal a worse place to work, and because it would make compromising the spirit of the principles much easier.
It's probably helpful to look at a less emotionally charged principle like "customer focused". If your company enshrines "customer focus" as an inviolate principle, and nobody's comfortable discussing the value or meaning of "customer focus", you won't end up with a laser focus on the customer. You'll end up rudderless, because anyone skilled at office politics can justify whatever they want to do by declaring it customer focused.
It's probably helpful to look at a less emotionally charged principle like "customer focused". If your company enshrines "customer focus" as an inviolate principle, and nobody's comfortable discussing the value or meaning of "customer focus", you won't end up with a laser focus on the customer. You'll end up rudderless, because anyone skilled at office politics can justify whatever they want to do by declaring it customer focused.
Yeah you summed up what I was trying to say more clearly.
Freedom of speech, like any ideal or philosophy eventually reaches practical limits. Everything is bad in absolutes. Tech, particularly social tech, began with noble yet naive absolutist ideals surrounding speech which has led to ham-fisted over corrections and contradictory take-downs.
>It's like the Komsomol have come to town.
You don't think this is over-egging the custard a bit?
You don't think this is over-egging the custard a bit?
I wish you were right. But, it doesn't seem like it. This is Signal we're talking about having a discussion about censoring speech --their whole premise was to NOT be aware of the speech users engaged in from the get go.
I mean Moxie flat out said “nah that’s silly, we’re not doing that”, so I guess I’m not sure what the panic is about. An employee quitting over disagreement? Makes sense to me: the employee is entitled to their opinion! I’ve quit jobs over similar. I disagree with the employee, but this all seems like a storm in a teacup at this point?
Are they actually talking about censoring speech though?
I didn’t get that from the article unless I genuinely missed something.
I didn’t get that from the article unless I genuinely missed something.
No, the question was regarding how to handle activity in the platform deemed illegal under US law.
The specific hypothetical was if the Proud Boys were to recruit people for coordinated violence and not “what if I don’t like someone’s politics?”
The specific hypothetical was if the Proud Boys were to recruit people for coordinated violence and not “what if I don’t like someone’s politics?”
> During an all-hands meeting, an employee asked Marlinspike how the company would respond if a member of the Proud Boys or another extremist organization posted a Signal group chat link publicly in an effort to recruit members and coordinate violence.
> Oh, but boy, wait, what if people in whose politics we don't believe in use it?
Coordinating violence and recruiting people to participate in that violence isn’t a political stance.
> Oh, but boy, wait, what if people in whose politics we don't believe in use it?
Coordinating violence and recruiting people to participate in that violence isn’t a political stance.
> being coy
Not really. It's weaponized privacy. Freedom of speech for thee (when it's expedient to my political goals) but not for me.
Not really. It's weaponized privacy. Freedom of speech for thee (when it's expedient to my political goals) but not for me.
Except coordinating violence, which is specifically what the employee asked about, isn’t a “political goal”.
Breaking US law isn’t covered by the First Amendment and coordinating violence is breaking US law.
Breaking US law isn’t covered by the First Amendment and coordinating violence is breaking US law.
FWIW, I agree with you.
I don't agree when insurrection and violence is deemed 'political activism' or 'free speech' in countries like Iran, China, North Korea, etc.
I don't agree when insurrection and violence is deemed 'political activism' or 'free speech' in countries like Iran, China, North Korea, etc.
And yet they still have no solution to backup messages, other than running the (Electron!) desktop client 24/7. I don’t want cloud backups, but going as far as force disabling encrypted local iTunes backups is terrible. People expect these to be comprehensive backups and will get a nasty surprise
Privacy should not come at the cost of data ownership
Privacy should not come at the cost of data ownership
[deleted]
You can’t moderate what you can’t see. That’s the point, fascists. For truly, this article endorses breaking E2E and subduing wrong-think.
Looks like full on propaganda for a smear campaign.
"Concerned "Parents" are worried that video games might cause kids to become violent murderers kind. "
This is just mainstream media and their lackeys blowing up things out of proportion just to prevent Signal from getting popular.
"Concerned "Parents" are worried that video games might cause kids to become violent murderers kind. "
This is just mainstream media and their lackeys blowing up things out of proportion just to prevent Signal from getting popular.
I predict that at some point there will be a case of gun violence, where the attackers used signal, and it will result in tougher crypto laws but not tougher gun laws.
[deleted]
So just out of curiosity for those in defense of unmoderated e2e encrypted coms:
When terrorists and cp distributers are using your platform which of your ideals will take precedence?
When terrorists and cp distributers are using your platform which of your ideals will take precedence?
You mean we should ban encryption on the physical hardware of the Internet? Once there is a mechanism to verify the identity of the other party, those two parties don’t need the platform to do end to end encryption. Each party generates a public/private key pair, does some double encryption magic, and it’s all over. The platform doing this is a convenience. The platform storing this is just giving the government a convenient place to decrypt it once they have coerced the keys from one or more of the parties. I wonder how that would fly with the citizens of other countries that use Signal? Would they be comfortable with the US government reading their messages?
Why is the left now so into policies that they decry when done in other countries: social scoring, travel bans, censorship? What is going on? Is the US going through it’s version of China’s Cultural Revolution?
Why is the left now so into policies that they decry when done in other countries: social scoring, travel bans, censorship? What is going on? Is the US going through it’s version of China’s Cultural Revolution?
Has GP indicated that they are on "the left"?
There is a growing idea especially among Americans that all "left" people are authoritarians. It's even funnier because the idea of "terrorists and cp distributors" using encryption to bypass regulation was floated in your Congress was almost verbatim the reasoning behind the EARN IT act, introduced in Senate by Lindsey Graham, whom I hope you don't think is on the left. It went on to receive bipartisan support as well.
There is a growing idea especially among Americans that all "left" people are authoritarians. It's even funnier because the idea of "terrorists and cp distributors" using encryption to bypass regulation was floated in your Congress was almost verbatim the reasoning behind the EARN IT act, introduced in Senate by Lindsey Graham, whom I hope you don't think is on the left. It went on to receive bipartisan support as well.
Quotes from the article leave that impression.
“The app saw a surge in usage during last year’s protests for racial justice, even adding a tool to automatically blur faces in photos to help activists more safely share images of the demonstrations. This kind of growth, one that supported progressive causes, was exciting to Signal’s roughly 30-member team.”
“But as the US presidential election grew closer, some Signal employees began raising concerns that group links could be abused. On September 29th, during a debate, President Trump had told the far-right extremist group the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.” During an all-hands meeting, an employee asked Marlinspike how the company would respond if a member of the Proud Boys or another extremist organization posted a Signal group chat link publicly in an effort to recruit members and coordinate violence.“
““The world needs products like Signal — but they also need Signal to be thoughtful,” said Gregg Bernstein, a former user researcher who left the organization this month over his concerns.”
————
You do know that there was also coordinated violence in the BLM protests.
“The app saw a surge in usage during last year’s protests for racial justice, even adding a tool to automatically blur faces in photos to help activists more safely share images of the demonstrations. This kind of growth, one that supported progressive causes, was exciting to Signal’s roughly 30-member team.”
“But as the US presidential election grew closer, some Signal employees began raising concerns that group links could be abused. On September 29th, during a debate, President Trump had told the far-right extremist group the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.” During an all-hands meeting, an employee asked Marlinspike how the company would respond if a member of the Proud Boys or another extremist organization posted a Signal group chat link publicly in an effort to recruit members and coordinate violence.“
““The world needs products like Signal — but they also need Signal to be thoughtful,” said Gregg Bernstein, a former user researcher who left the organization this month over his concerns.”
————
You do know that there was also coordinated violence in the BLM protests.
I'm specifically talking about the person you replied to, not the article, which is more of an opinion piece with facts interspersed.
I didn’t say that specific person was left. But yes I should have been more clear.
And yes, I know about that bill and that it was supported by Republicans. In fact, I linked to it in an earlier comment prior to your comment.
And yes, I know about that bill and that it was supported by Republicans. In fact, I linked to it in an earlier comment prior to your comment.
So just to be clear, as a platform you would be willing to facilitate those types of communications on the principle of "they could just do it themselves"?
Yes of course. It is the principle of privacy. Most of the time, governments have far more power than such groups.
This power is ripe for abuse and power like this has been abused in the past in the US. Why would you think that it wouldn’t be abused again?
Example, what the FBI did in the 60s including to MLK.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–King_suicide_letter
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
Illegal surveillance against people deemed subversives. Taped MLK’s affairs. Sent it to his wife and him. Told him to commit suicide.
Another example: More recent history as revealed by Edward Snowden shows that the government basically recorded all phone calls and grabbed all Google data on you, etc...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden
Who is willing to invest this power in government? Apparently, for some ridiculous reason, you are more afraid of those Capitol Hill nut jobs than the CIA and FBI? You know the CIA that overthrows governments like that of Iran. You know the FBI that spies on sitting Presidents. Compare that to the nut jobs who organized publicly on Facebook and Twitter and decided to take selfie’s and posted to social media?
Would you be for or against this if Trump won a second term?
This power is ripe for abuse and power like this has been abused in the past in the US. Why would you think that it wouldn’t be abused again?
Example, what the FBI did in the 60s including to MLK.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–King_suicide_letter
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
Illegal surveillance against people deemed subversives. Taped MLK’s affairs. Sent it to his wife and him. Told him to commit suicide.
Another example: More recent history as revealed by Edward Snowden shows that the government basically recorded all phone calls and grabbed all Google data on you, etc...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden
Who is willing to invest this power in government? Apparently, for some ridiculous reason, you are more afraid of those Capitol Hill nut jobs than the CIA and FBI? You know the CIA that overthrows governments like that of Iran. You know the FBI that spies on sitting Presidents. Compare that to the nut jobs who organized publicly on Facebook and Twitter and decided to take selfie’s and posted to social media?
Would you be for or against this if Trump won a second term?
What are moderated e2ee comms?
How do you moderate content you are not expected to have any access to by design? And if the answer is to not have encryption, then when activists or groups that are being actively targeted and threatened need secure communications but find none, who is that on?
How do you moderate content you are not expected to have any access to by design? And if the answer is to not have encryption, then when activists or groups that are being actively targeted and threatened need secure communications but find none, who is that on?
If it’s E2E encrypted how do you propose finding out about it?
And frankly it’s a near certainty they already do. I know drug dealers do at least.
And frankly it’s a near certainty they already do. I know drug dealers do at least.
The entire value proposition of Signal is that no one in the middle can see what's going across. The vast majority of those things will be benign or even good. A few will be bad or abusive. People use Twitter, Gmail, Facebook Messenger, Apple Messages and whatever Google is calling their chat client today for good, bad and ugly things, too.
I'd have much more respect for Casey Newton (I hope you're reading this) if he disrobed from his pretense and lectured us about Signal being a tool for Orange Man 2.0, rather than this vague whisper campaign about "abuse." And, personally, unless Newton entirely made up his quotes or took them totally out of context, Gregg Bernstein (hope he reads this, too) would have very little shot of making it past a phone screen with me. A former employee trying to stir up my workforce by attacking the core values of my company in the press is not something I look kindly on.