I read it and don’t understand. Why is this better than Signal?
Messaging protocols already resemble the frameworks that come out from time to time. And their effectiveness is due to the fact that they require a certain quota of users.
It’s just a secure messaging app with a direct line to Guardian journalists. How to use 911 or special numbers when you’re not feeling well.
Because analysing network traffic wouldn’t allow an adversary to see what you’re sending with Signal, but they could still tell you’re sendig a secure message.
What the Guardian is doing is hiding that secure chat traffic inside the Guardian app, so packet sniffing would only show you’re accessing news.
analysing network traffic wouldn’t allow an adversary to see what you’re sending with Signal
How are they analyzing network traffic with Signal? It’s encrypted. And why does it matter if they know you’re sending a message? Literally everyone using Signal is sending a message.
How are they analyzing network traffic with Signal? It’s encrypted
Again, not my specialty, but signals end to end encryption is akin to sealing a letter. Nobody but the sender and the recipient can open that letter.
But you still gotta send it through the mail. That’s the network traffic analysis that can be used.
Here’s an example of why that could be bad.
Timing of messages. They can’t tell what you send, but can tell when
Mynameisallen@lemmy.zip 9 months ago
For one, ease of access. Say you’re trying to break a story, who are you going to message with signal? Because you’re going to need to get that contact info somehow right?
Snowden is permanently stranded in Russia. That’s not exactly a great example of an anonymous source.
Ulrich@feddit.org 9 months ago
…The Guardian?
Use your browser? These are strange questions.
Did you notice that I used the past tense?