Authoritarianism Through Coding: Signal(oyd.org.tr)
oyd.org.tr
Authoritarianism Through Coding: Signal
https://www.oyd.org.tr/en/articles/signal/
38 comments
In this instance (slang/idiom/etc.) the UrbanDictionary description provides me a basic idea of what you're trying to convey (assuming it's generally correct): https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mam%C3%B3n
Yeah and the comment from Moxie that he first highlights is a complaint that LibreSignal used Signal's own servers for traffic. The ensuing discussion is hilarious.
self-righteous and a bit immature is how it came off to me. I definitely agree that tone is distracting from the article. made me stop reading faster
I find the non free dependencies and centralization as annoying as the next person interested in the P2P sphere but I think Signal and Moxie have legitimate reasoning for their actions.
Signal is intended for consumption by every day people not security enthusiasts. Any complication or inconvenience jeopardizes this goal. Something like picking a server, choosing an implementation, exchanging identities, setting up an account somewhere are all complications that people don't normally want to think about. As it is, someone installs Signal from the play store, it becomes their default messenger, and they are done in a few taps.
I think the great success Signal has had is because of this mindset compared to the dozens of other projects.
Signal is intended for consumption by every day people not security enthusiasts. Any complication or inconvenience jeopardizes this goal. Something like picking a server, choosing an implementation, exchanging identities, setting up an account somewhere are all complications that people don't normally want to think about. As it is, someone installs Signal from the play store, it becomes their default messenger, and they are done in a few taps.
I think the great success Signal has had is because of this mindset compared to the dozens of other projects.
Even without federalization Signal the platform is decidedly unfree. It is hard-tied to either Android or IOS (the desktop version requires the app on a smartphone with one of those two OSes) and requires the user's mobile phone number as identifier.
These issues should be fairly trivial to solve from a technical standpoint (decidedly not something Open Whisper Systems can't handle), but these restrictions still remain.
These issues should be fairly trivial to solve from a technical standpoint (decidedly not something Open Whisper Systems can't handle), but these restrictions still remain.
The argument against this is the same as with the parent post to yours: UX. Signal has made the decision to use the phone number as identifier, and that's part of the reason it works so well for novices.
I totally agree with you; I would not have bound identities to phone numbers either. However, Signal is reaching a wide audience like little else has while still being more open than the other encrypted messengers. This seems to indicate that Signal has taken the best balance in compromise.
I totally agree with you; I would not have bound identities to phone numbers either. However, Signal is reaching a wide audience like little else has while still being more open than the other encrypted messengers. This seems to indicate that Signal has taken the best balance in compromise.
The UX argument is simply not convincing at this point. Sure, for an MVP it seems a fair choice, but they are way past that stage of development. They could simply keep the mobile phone number as an option, and even default to it on mobile OSes, and the UX would hardly suffer.
[deleted]
This guy is an asshole. If he doesn't like signal is run he should do the work of running an alternative. Do the work of building something or shut the fuckup.
What's more, Moxie, created audio books of many well known anarchists texts, it's not something an authoritarian would do.
https://www.audioanarchy.org/
Moxie made signal work because he chose to ignore all the security 'experts' who keep insisting on unusable software. Use briar or the fully p2p version of matrix if you don't like signal. Or use the code Moxie has given to the public to adapt signal to your needs. He did 99% of the work for you.
What's more, Moxie, created audio books of many well known anarchists texts, it's not something an authoritarian would do.
https://www.audioanarchy.org/
Moxie made signal work because he chose to ignore all the security 'experts' who keep insisting on unusable software. Use briar or the fully p2p version of matrix if you don't like signal. Or use the code Moxie has given to the public to adapt signal to your needs. He did 99% of the work for you.
"This approach is not only a threat to free software it is a recurring threat to human kind!"
wut?
From 'Decentralized systems are hard to build' to 'Democracies suck because...'.
The mental gymnastics in this post.
Sounds more like someone has beef with Moxie.
From 'Decentralized systems are hard to build' to 'Democracies suck because...'.
The mental gymnastics in this post.
Sounds more like someone has beef with Moxie.
100% - the argument in this article is illogical beyond belief.
“Decentralised systems are hard to build, but democracy is also hard to build, so you are a fascist.”
“Decentralised systems are hard to build, but democracy is also hard to build, so you are a fascist.”
Shut up and code.
Ok, if decentralized systems are harder but worth it: go write code. Prove you are right.
Over the years I’ve kept a mental list of all the dudes that claim they could write better code than some existing major project. Recently I did a little “where are they now” experiment and they were all still working entry-level jobs and (surprise surprise!) never created that better system they promised.
This goes back to the 1989ish “teenage ninja mutant netnews” project plus many others over all those decades.
If you read Dennis Ritchie’s response to The Unix Haters Handbook you’ll find it very polite says hate all you want, but until you’ve written code that changed the world, duck you.
Ok, if decentralized systems are harder but worth it: go write code. Prove you are right.
Over the years I’ve kept a mental list of all the dudes that claim they could write better code than some existing major project. Recently I did a little “where are they now” experiment and they were all still working entry-level jobs and (surprise surprise!) never created that better system they promised.
This goes back to the 1989ish “teenage ninja mutant netnews” project plus many others over all those decades.
If you read Dennis Ritchie’s response to The Unix Haters Handbook you’ll find it very polite says hate all you want, but until you’ve written code that changed the world, duck you.
I am interested in such a list. Would you share?
My only thoughts are: put your money where your mouth is and help build a better solution that does follow your ideals. You can apparently even use the Signal source code to start as long as you don't use their servers and don't use their name.
Build things up rather than tearing others down for doing things differently.
Build things up rather than tearing others down for doing things differently.
Alternatives exists, but the network effect means that just building a better solution is not enough. In many countries even Signal can't put a dent in WhatsApp's dominance.
So even though we have alternatives like Matrix and whatnot: it doesn't matter much. The entrenched platform will persevere, and its successor is chosen not by features or user freedom, but by whatever the masses find shiny and convincing, and the investor driven budget of whatever startup-du-jour is hip at the time — and sometimes it just seems random.
A philanthropist could build a free, fully supported messaging platform that does everything anyone here can ask for as an act of altruism tomorrow, but succeeding in dislodging the incumbent solution can only happen if that platform fucks up so greatly that a mass exodus is possible. And that means a real royal fuck up of epic proportions; not just gathering more data (e.g., Facebook/WhatsApp), because the masses don't care — they want what they have now, and any change is too inconvenient to deal with.
So even though we have alternatives like Matrix and whatnot: it doesn't matter much. The entrenched platform will persevere, and its successor is chosen not by features or user freedom, but by whatever the masses find shiny and convincing, and the investor driven budget of whatever startup-du-jour is hip at the time — and sometimes it just seems random.
A philanthropist could build a free, fully supported messaging platform that does everything anyone here can ask for as an act of altruism tomorrow, but succeeding in dislodging the incumbent solution can only happen if that platform fucks up so greatly that a mass exodus is possible. And that means a real royal fuck up of epic proportions; not just gathering more data (e.g., Facebook/WhatsApp), because the masses don't care — they want what they have now, and any change is too inconvenient to deal with.
No this is wrong. The poster frames Moxie as the threat to our society, forgetting that the real threat in this instance is mass sureveilance and Moxie (even though he has given a very bad impression with his attitude) has only given us tools to defend ourselves against the real threat. You don't like his ways? Take his open source software and run your own. This post makes no sense at all but it was interesting only in the sense that it gave me some insight in the development of signal and it's direction that I don't really like. However, associating that with authoritarianism? Outrageous
I might be a bit biased because I actually have a marlinspike laying on my desk (it needs to get back into my line locker at some point) but this article reads as if the author has something against either Moxie Marlinspike or his company. The leader of a successful project HAS TO impose limits to move the project towards success. The only concrete example in the article is the removal of the non-standard client which may have had a real rationale that wasn't mentioned in the article (protection of a trademark?)
There's a very vocal voice about how signal is bad and the other federated thing is better.
But signal has already accomplished its goal (easy crypto for everyone) while the other is undergoing soon a server transition, has released a new version of their android client that hasn't yet all of the features of the previous client, encrypted rooms can still receive unencrypted content and isn't e2e by default and when it is you need to cross verify every clients unless you can live with red messages about unknown sessions in the room, etc. And they have different goals anyway.
Now I am back to wiring the neighbourhood with cat 6 to set up our own Internet because 'hey isp authoritaranism'.
What dictatorship are we actually helping when using signal that has proven not to store any messages or files while the default usage and instalation of the federated one leave transferred files unencrypted on the server?
It's definitely a false sense of privacy.
But signal has already accomplished its goal (easy crypto for everyone) while the other is undergoing soon a server transition, has released a new version of their android client that hasn't yet all of the features of the previous client, encrypted rooms can still receive unencrypted content and isn't e2e by default and when it is you need to cross verify every clients unless you can live with red messages about unknown sessions in the room, etc. And they have different goals anyway.
Now I am back to wiring the neighbourhood with cat 6 to set up our own Internet because 'hey isp authoritaranism'.
What dictatorship are we actually helping when using signal that has proven not to store any messages or files while the default usage and instalation of the federated one leave transferred files unencrypted on the server?
It's definitely a false sense of privacy.
I think authoritarianism is dangerous because of force.
The first time I used IRC I thought the mod system was unjust. In one channel the mods decided to allow democratic selection of mods, new mods were elected and the vote was “rigged” by extra accounts. The channel devolved into chaos and the mods took back over.
At a project level, authoritarianism is based on subject matter expertise and who started the project. And with open source this is strengthened by the ability to fork the project. If I don’t like a project, use something else. If I, and others, really don’t like the project, we can fork it and start our own copy.
Trying to “vote” a project you don’t like seems like a bankrupt idea to me. Either participate in the community, gain authority and credibility through contributions, or walk away and start a fork.
I think software works well with “benevolent dictatorships” as long as there’s no lock-in or requirement to use it.
The first time I used IRC I thought the mod system was unjust. In one channel the mods decided to allow democratic selection of mods, new mods were elected and the vote was “rigged” by extra accounts. The channel devolved into chaos and the mods took back over.
At a project level, authoritarianism is based on subject matter expertise and who started the project. And with open source this is strengthened by the ability to fork the project. If I don’t like a project, use something else. If I, and others, really don’t like the project, we can fork it and start our own copy.
Trying to “vote” a project you don’t like seems like a bankrupt idea to me. Either participate in the community, gain authority and credibility through contributions, or walk away and start a fork.
I think software works well with “benevolent dictatorships” as long as there’s no lock-in or requirement to use it.
> I think software works well with “benevolent dictatorships” as long as there’s no lock-in or requirement to use it.
Communication systems have implicit lock-in due to network efffects. That is why it is important to support federated systems only.
Communication systems have implicit lock-in due to network efffects. That is why it is important to support federated systems only.
Yes, definitely. But signal is an optional person to person program. I think it’s pretty easy to switch, or even take the source and make something new.
Even with closed source stuff like Facebook, it seems dumb to claim they are authoritarian and try to change them. It’s their product, just leave.
Lego isn’t authoritarian because they don’t make sets and changes that I want. It’s their company and they make what they make.
Even with closed source stuff like Facebook, it seems dumb to claim they are authoritarian and try to change them. It’s their product, just leave.
Lego isn’t authoritarian because they don’t make sets and changes that I want. It’s their company and they make what they make.
Can someone provide a short technical summary for folks, like me, not closely tracking libre signal, F-droid, etc.? I get the freedom arguments, but what is the technical crux of the issue?
Did a reimplementation (competitor?) of signal without nonfree dependencies get removed from google store? If so, why? Etc.
Did a reimplementation (competitor?) of signal without nonfree dependencies get removed from google store? If so, why? Etc.
The founder of Signal did not like them:
a) Using the Signal backend infrastructure which Signal pays for
b) Using the Signal name which I'm guessing Signal has a trademark for
a) Using the Signal backend infrastructure which Signal pays for
b) Using the Signal name which I'm guessing Signal has a trademark for
my recollection:
Signal uses Google cloud messaging to wake up the phone when the server receives a message for the user. The message itself does not go through GCM. It does this because GCM was (is?) the only way to reliably wake up the phone on a push notification.
Libresignal removed GCM and used websockets for this wakeup message (?).
OpenWhisper didn't want them to use the Signal servers or the name Signal.
Signal uses Google cloud messaging to wake up the phone when the server receives a message for the user. The message itself does not go through GCM. It does this because GCM was (is?) the only way to reliably wake up the phone on a push notification.
Libresignal removed GCM and used websockets for this wakeup message (?).
OpenWhisper didn't want them to use the Signal servers or the name Signal.
Too many exclamation marks for one article. I'm not using Signal at the moment and might never do it, but their technical decisions are theirs and they will carry the consequences if they are wrong.
[deleted]
It is sad to see this push for yet another centralized client-locked comm-tool, being justified that this time it is OK because backing corporation is non-profit.
Ther real problem of centralized, closed systems is not profit, but concentration of power. Using such power to extract profit is just one of many perks of having such power.
Ther real problem of centralized, closed systems is not profit, but concentration of power. Using such power to extract profit is just one of many perks of having such power.
Power's impact is on how it is used. It can be used, for example, to help make better software for the end-user.
I did not know about the Wire incident.
It is a shame that the main decision maker and owner of Signal is such an untrustworthy person - authoritarian, abuser of copyright and trademarks, working together with Facebook and helping Google keep their control by sabotaging fdroid.
It is a shame that the main decision maker and owner of Signal is such an untrustworthy person - authoritarian, abuser of copyright and trademarks, working together with Facebook and helping Google keep their control by sabotaging fdroid.
Who seriously flagged this?
By denouncingly Movlxie Marlinspike (not Merlinspike) authoritarian because he run his free software project, the author pushes the communications ecosystem toward actual authoritarian systems.
Fortunately the argument is utterly unconvincing as it is buzzword-based without logical reasoning.
> By denouncingly Movlxie Marlinspike (not Merlinspike) authoritarian because he run his free software project,
There is a funny "law" that whoever publicly corrects a spelling in someone elses writing is doomed to introduce a worse one themselves and it seems it held true this time :-D
There is a funny "law" that whoever publicly corrects a spelling in someone elses writing is doomed to introduce a worse one themselves and it seems it held true this time :-D
Maybe it's not a misspelling, movlxie is just the vectorised instruction form of moxie for 64 bit (long) addresses?
1. Marlinspike is misspelled throughout the article as "Merlinspike" &
2. This article is super mamón. That's a word here in Mexico I'm not sure how to perfectly put into English, but here are some examples from the article:
>Open Whisper Systems led by Moxie Merlinspike, who is behind Signal, is and was never behind freedom.
>People died for freedom, they are still dying and struggling around the globe. Then someone comes and stomps over every ideal which human society ever build up until this point in history and proclaims themselves the world leader! Think about it!
I think in English I might say something like 'Oh please', or 'stop wanking yourself so hard'.
The core message of 'I would prefer a decentralized messaging service and Signal is lacking in that regard' is severely diminished by the suffocatingly wanky [I want to say mamón, whoever has a better word here please offer suggestions!] tone of this article