Question: are you missing the point deliberately, or is it genuine obliviousness?
Comment on What If: Signal Was Part of the Fediverse?
dismalnow@kbin.social 11 months agoNot doubting that pushy idiots are going to pushy idiot, but I think you've strawmanned the actual reason hard enough.
Most people who want it back don't need, want, or understand why secure messaging exists.
Here's the simple facts:
SMS is not secure, or private.
Signal is for secure, private comms.[
As mildly inconvenient as it is, Signal explained their reasoning in great detail](https://signal.org/blog/sms-removal-android/), and I happen to agree: There should never have been an insecure option on a secure messaging app.
sarsaparilyptus@discuss.online 11 months ago
effingjoe@kbin.social 11 months ago
You literally made up an argument no one made in this thread.
The fact of the matter is that it is unwise to have both secure and insecure messaging side-by-side. Depending on where you live, this could translate to a simple mistake resulting in imprisonment or worse. It's very important that a "secure messaging app" only allow secure messaging.
You, like myself, probably live in an area where accidentally sending a message critical of the government over an insecure message would not have any tangible consequences, so perhaps you're weighing the convenience as more important due to lack of perspective.
WhoRoger@lemmy.world 11 months ago
By that logic tho, you can also accidentally open a different app and send an sms, because on Android all the apps need to look and behave basically exactly the same for some reason.
dismalnow@kbin.social 11 months ago
I recognize you're probably not the original commenter, but this is the same flavor of strawman.
App is app. Other app is other app.
In one app, it was possible to send both SMS and encrypted messages. In the other, just SMS.
dismalnow@kbin.social 11 months ago
I don't feel that it's me being intentionally dense here because, again, you've concocted an irrelevant scenario to argue your tenuous position - which I already agreed is possible, but irrelevant in this context.
App is app. Other app is other app.
In one app, it was possible to send both SMS and encrypted messages. In the other, just SMS.
effingjoe@kbin.social 11 months ago
This is not a very thoughtful response.
sarsaparilyptus@discuss.online 11 months ago
You literally made up an argument no one made in this thread.
I literally was not confined to this thread, which is blatantly obvious if you know how context works.
The fact of the matter is that it is unwise to have both secure and insecure messaging side-by-side.
Skill issue. If it’s too hard for some people to pay attention to what they’re doing and use a tool correctly, they can buy a Vsmile. This is all ignoring the fact that no human being could possibly fuck it up on Signal unless they’re too illiterate to send text messages—or indeed use a cell phone—in the first place.
effingjoe@kbin.social 11 months ago
I literally was not confined to this thread, which is blatantly obvious if you know how context works.
Making up an argument no one in the discussion has made is called the "Strawman Fallacy". Why should anyone in this thread care that you talked to someone (allegedly) that was so dense that they made a bad argument that you got frustrated with?
If it’s too hard for some people to pay attention to what they’re doing and use a tool correctly
Ah, so much hyperbole. If I'm successfully stripping all of it away, is seems that your argument is that it is impossible (P=0) to accidentally send an SMS message in Signal, thinking it was a secure message. Is that really your stance? Admittedly, there was a lot of hyperbole so I might have missed the actual point. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
ChaosSauce@wizanons.dev 11 months ago
Totally agree. Good opsec is all about building good habits. Having 1 app for secure and a different app for normal creates a healthy compartmentalization in the mind for ease of building and maintaining habits.
dismalnow@kbin.social 11 months ago
Indeed.
It's a very basic trade that it seems few understand. You MUST trade a bit of convenience to increase your security, or mistakes will happen.
ebc@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
Well, I happen to disagree. I’m a privacy-conscious person, but I’m not an activist. Most of my contacts in real life (i.e the people I need a messaging app to talk to) are non-technical, and not really privacy-conscious. They’re not going to install a different app just to talk to me. The big draw of TextSecure (before it became Signal) was that they could just set that as their default SMS app, and it’d magically start to send encrypted messages if the other end was also using TextSecure, and they had to change exactly 0 of their habits.
I guess it depends on how you view it:
I thought the goal was 1, but turns out it was 2. All my contacts are now back to Facebook Messenger…
poop@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
It sounds like you’re slightly mis-remembering this oft-cited Hacker News comment from Moxie from 2015. I’m going to quote the main bit here because honestly a lot of people in this thread could stand to think about it:
ebc@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
I wasn’t actually quoting this, but yeah, I think that’s the point. Supporting SMS was helping adoption by promoting a seamless transition for users. Dropping it feels like prioritizing #2 to me. (All this comment thread about opsec, compartimentalization, activism, etc is really about #2, IMO)