• NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    Yeah, I trust Whittaker’s conviction on this because she’s been tested multiple times by the governments of multiple countries at this point. When pushed, her response is “OK, we just won’t support your country, bye”… and then the government ends up using Signal internally anyway. She is more than just talk, and so far she’s been unwilling to sell out or compromise Signal for anyone. At the moment, there’s no other secure communication project that I know of that is similarly effective, well audited by third parties, and has trustworthy leadership.

    Proton is more complicated. There are more tradeoffs and compromises, but it is also more complex and offers more functionality than just a messaging platform. I recommend this video by Reject Convenience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFKSKjyBVDU He used Proton services for awhile and has made some different choices since, so he has some useful criticism from experience (not knee-jerk reactionary stuff).

    At some point you have to make decisions about what your risk tolerance is, how much manual effort you can reasonably put in to sustain your tools, and how much money you’re willing to spend on it. Proton is the right choice for many people not because it’s a perfect company, but because providing equivalent functionality for yourself is a full-time job.

    • amzd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      and then the government ends up using Signal internally anyway

      Which is terrible for national security because everything is hosted on centralized American servers

      • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        In order to provide a globally accessible, reliable, and high-performance communications service for the many millions of people around the world who depend on Signal, it’s necessary for Signal’s servers to be globally distributed. Having a geographically distributed network of servers is particularly important for end-to-end encrypted voice and video calls, because latency can result in audio delays or degraded video connections that quickly make the app unusable for real-time communication.

        Because everything in Signal is end-to-end encrypted, we can rent server infrastructure from a variety of providers like Amazon AWS, Google Compute Engine, Microsoft Azure, and others while ensuring that your messages and calls remain private and secure. We can’t access them, and neither can the companies that provide any of the infrastructure we rent. As a small nonprofit organization, we cannot afford to purchase all of the physical computers that are necessary to support everyone who relies on Signal while also placing them in independent data centers around the world. Only a select few of the very largest companies globally are still capable of doing this, which is a hallmark of a troublingly concentrated industry.

        https://signal.org/blog/signal-is-expensive/

        Signal’s servers are distributed globally, but yes rented primarily from American companies. I think they would diversify this if they could, but there aren’t really other options with global presence. The only other host providers with comparable scale are Chinese ( like Tencent), but Signal is banned in China as of 2021 ( https://www.vice.com/en/article/signal-blocked-in-china/ ) because the PRC does not allow its citizens to have privacy from government surveillance at all.

        There is no evidence that having Signal infrastructure hosted on US company servers provides any capacity for the US government to bypass Signal’s encryption.

        • amzd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          There is no evidence that having Signal infrastructure hosted on US company servers provides any capacity for the US government to bypass Signal’s encryption.

          I didn’t say that. A foreign government being able to disable your communication whenever they want to is already a threat to national security

          • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            18 hours ago

            A foreign government being able to disable your communication whenever they want to is already a threat to national security

            Well… yes it would be, but even though we’re talking about US-based companies, the servers aren’t all located within US borders, they’re spread around the globe. Maybe the US government could force Amazon data centers within the US to stop carrying Signal data… though that in itself would be a logistical mess and I’m not sure how they would justify it legally. Even the current administration loses court battles and their actions get reversed, and at that point they’d be contending with the legal teams of both Signal and Amazon, plus probably the ACLU and EFF. Considering how few competent lawyers are left in the Trump administration, I doubt they would win that court battle.

            For the servers outside the US, not only would it be a logistical and legal nightmare but I’m also not sure how it would be done in a technical sense, at least not all at once or in a time frame of less than a month. It would be very difficult to accomplish actually shutting down Signal’s operations in any practical way. You would have to exercise legal authority or physical force over more than half the data centers on the planet (AWS, Google, Microsoft).

            • amzd@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 hours ago

              the servers aren’t all located within US borders

              The US servers are required (see us-west outage crashing Signal globally)