I wish Signal was developed more openly, more like the linux kernel for a “critical infrastructure” example. I wish it had more features, so it could take the place of something like Slack. I wish it supported interoperability like fedi.
But it’s good for what it is and I sure am glad it’s around. People who disrespect it don’t know what they’re talking about.
You know, if you want to replace Slack, look into Mattermost. It’s foss but otherwise pretty much exactly what Slack does so well.
Why not? I thought it had very good security. It’s E2E encrypted and the government of France uses it.
I think yours is the first comment I’ve read that has Proton hesitancy. I’m curious what your reservations are.
Not OP, I’ve heard criticism of their recent Duo subscription and their bitcoin wallet.
I use Proton services and my biggest gripe is their mediocre Linux VPN app. No binaries to download/Flatpak, advertised port-forwarding isn’t fully implemented and requires playing around in a terminal, and UI feels less polished than it’s Windows counterpart.
There’s a community made Flatpak of ProtonVPN though, in case it helps anyone
I actually don’t know what people’s hesitancy is, but I’ve seen numerous people say proton is not good, we’ll see if anybody chimes in with a reason.
Not OP
There’s not a lot of negative press about them.
They complied with Swiss government requests to out the IP of a French activist.
It looks like they’re really doing the best they can.
Swiss laws aren’t as tight as a lot of people think.
I’d like for them to lean more heavily into open source
Yeah, I don’t trust proton mail.
First off, email is inherently insecure, trying to secure it is largely a waste of time.
Secondly, proton has complied with subpoenas in the past, revealing user messages to authorities/governments.
Finally, it’s just too centralized, with a single point of failure, why would you trust it?
This is a very rude question, but on this subject of being lean, I looked up your 990 and you pay yourself less than some of your engineers.
Yes, and our goal is to pay people as close to Silicon Valley’s salaries as possible, so we can recruit very senior people, knowing that we don’t have equity to offer them. We pay engineers very well. [Leans in performatively toward the phone recording the interview.] If anyone’s looking for a job, we pay very, very well.
So, I googled their tax filing out of curiosity. It’s true that Meredith pays herself much less than her engineers, which is great. What I was rather shocked to see is that they pay their software developers enormous salaries. They’re listing developers making over $400,000 per year, with their VP making over $660,000 per year. Now, I’m all for the value-creators making more money than the CEO. I just had no idea that software developers make that kind of coin. I was thinking of donating to Signal, but I’m kind of weirded out by those astronomical salaries.
That’s inline with Silicon valley salaries. Basic houses cost 2mil there, so it’s not completely outrageous.
As an example, openai pays all its engineers 300k flat+500k/yr in some stock based asset. Another example is Netflix, who are notoriously a very fickle employer, but salaries start in the 400k range and go up from there.
Yes, the article makes the point that Signal needs to compete for talent with the rest of Silicon Valley. I get that. And we’ve all heard about the nearly unfathomable amounts of money that tech companies throw around. When you break it down to individual salaries, though, and see that even normal people in normal jobs are making a million dollars a year between salary and stock… well, I think it really exposes the spectacular wealth inequality that we have allowed to fester. I mean, sure, shelter costs may be high in Silicon Valley, but the cost of other goods remain about the same. A $50,000 truck that an average person in Nebraska might have to save for years to afford is barely a rounding error for folks making a million a year. I’m no economist, but it does seem like there are consequences for this kind of ever-growing wealth inequality.
It is also absurd on its face for a multi-millionaire developer to place a “Donate Now” button in an app and talk about being a non-profit to tug at the heart strings of people who make one-tenth of what the developers are making. It’s feels like Scrooge asking Tiny Tim for a donation.
Anyway, I don’t blame the developers for this absurd situation, and I do appreciate Signal, and Meredith is clearly a cool person who is fighting the good fight against big tech surveillance. But every once in a while an article like this reminds me how deeply fucked up the world is. It seems we are approaching pre-French Revolution levels of economic disparity, and maybe it helps explain why so many working class people are pissed off.
Not all SW devs make that kind of money. I don’t live in Silicon Valley, and I make significantly less than that amount. I could probably get a job there making somewhere north of $300k, but my expenses would go through the roof and I’d be stuck in SV traffic all the time, no thank you. I get paid well, but less than half what Signal is paying.
I mean, how does a free app with no advertising in it make that kind of money?
A free app with no advertising doesn’t make that kind of money, it gets progressively deeper into debt to a good Silicon Valley rich guy who got it off the ground, Brian Acton.
His biography on the Signal Foundation website:
Brian Acton is an entrepreneur and computer programmer who co-founded the messaging app WhatsApp in 2009. After the app was sold to Facebook in 2014, Acton decided to leave the company due to differences surrounding the use of customer data and targeted advertising to focus his efforts on non-profit ventures. In February of 2018, Acton invested $50 million of his own money to start the Signal Foundation alongside Moxie Marlinspike. Signal Foundation is a nonprofit organization dedicated to doing the foundational work around making private communication accessible, secure and ubiquitous.
Prior to founding WhatsApp and Signal Foundation, Acton worked as a software builder for more than 25 years at companies like Apple, Yahoo, and Adobe.
The Wikipedia article on the Foundation says the loan balance was up to $108M later in 2018. Meanwhile, Acton is still worth $2.5B according to Wikipedia, so things are probably fine for now, even 6 years later.
But you’re right that Signal eventually needs revenue to keep even a small team of high caliber software engineers and devsecops folks around. You very much want excellent engineers to continue to be involved with critical encrypted communications software on an ongoing basis, so it will cost money indefinitely. Presumably Acton does not wish to bankroll it indefinitely.
Again back to the interview:
I wouldn’t imagine that most nonprofits pay engineers as much as you do.
Yeah, but most tech is not a nonprofit. Name another nonprofit tech organization shipping critical infrastructure that provides real-time communications across the globe reliably. There isn’t one.
This is not a hypothesis project. We’re not in a room dreaming of a perfect future. We have to do it now. It has to work. If the servers go down, I need a guy with a pager to get up in the middle of the fucking night and be on that screen, diagnosing whatever the problem is, until that is fixed.
So we have to look like a tech company in some ways to be able to do what we do.
I’m really glad they pay those engineers that much, so that Zuckerberg and his ilk can’t entice them away with oodles of money. One presumes they also believe in the cause, but I think this currently looks like Acton fighting surveillance capitalism with what capitalism got for him earlier in his career.
Cofounder Moxie Marlinspike is clearly a brilliant hacker and coder who was crucial to Signal’s creation, but I think it makes sense that he hasn’t stuck around to try to solve the long term business problem of keeping it aloft infinitely.
So what to do about it? The OP interview is with Meredith Whittaker, who’s entire job is figuring that out:
Since she took on the presidency at the Signal Foundation, she has come to see her central task as working to find a long-term taproot of funding to keep Signal alive for decades to come—with zero compromises or corporate entanglements—so it can serve as a model for an entirely new kind of tech ecosystem.
I’m a recurring donor because I want Signal to succeed and I want to vote now with my wallet, but fundamentally it’s on Whittaker to figure out how to make the long term work. Here’s what she says:
I see Signal in 10 years being nearly ubiquitous. I see it being supported by a novel sustainability infrastructure—and I’m being vague about that just because I think we actually need to create the kinds of endowments and support mechanisms that can sustain capital-intensive tech without the surveillance business model. And that’s what I’m actually engaged in thinking through.
My only gripe with signal, is the use of phone numbers as usernames. Not everyone with whom I want to communicate via signal has a phone number. I understand why they went this route, but wish there was an alternative way.
You can use a username only for finding and adding friends, you only need the phone number to create an account. That’s probably because Signal started as an alternative to Messages (or whatever it was called back then), so you could send SMS if you wanted, or secure messages to friends w/ Signal. The whole point was to be a gentle transition from SMS to private messaging. However, they eventually dropped the SMS feature, but it seems they kept the phone number as username thing.
It kind of sucks, but I think that’s a reasonable limitation since the vast majority of people using this service will have a phone number. You could probably even sign up for a free trial of something (e.g. Google Fi) to sign up for Signal, set up the username, and then drop the phone number service. I don’t know if there are any problems with this, but I don’t think they do anything with your phone number after everything is set up.
I think another reason they use a phone number is that it can mitigate issues with people or bots creating hundred of accounts maybe
Yeah. And I don’t fault them for this route. I just with I could sign up without a phone number. Maybe the username thing is a predecessor to allowing usernam-only registration in the future.
Yeah, hopefully. It would also be awesome to have a web login so I could access messages and whatnot when using someone else’s computer w/o having to install something.
I don’t know what direction they’re going, but I’m honestly okay with the caveats that currently exist.
Big concern with your number being recycled and a new user receiving the signal activation key on that number.
Sure, and I think that would send a message to all of your contacts that a new account is using that number, but I’m honestly not sure. If you have an active account (i.e. on a desktop or something), I think you can just change your number if that happens (i.e. get another temp number).
It’s certainly more convenient if you use a longer-term number, but I think it’s feasible with a throwaway number. Once your account is set up, Signal doesn’t need your number for anything if you disable publishing that.
Another issue with phone numbers is that it makes it easier to censor - from what I heard, in Iran the confirmation SMS just would not arrive, making rentals the only option (thus making you risk your account being deleted by the new owner).
My personal biggest issue with Signal, though, was the inability to register from the official desktop client. They were pushing to register on mobile instead. There are ways around it, like Signal-Cli (what I used) and Android VMs. However, the fact that they push people onto mobile at all is worrying, because phones are much harder to make private (while you can install Linux onto pretty much any given laptop/desktop, only certain phones are compatible with alternative OSes, and mine wasn’t so I could not trust it with my chats).
Hmm, I guess then you’d need to get a VPN that works in your country (not sure how hard that is in Iran) and find a VOIP service that either doesn’t require any payment, or accepts payments from Iran.
It’s certainly not ideal, and I wish they’d eliminate the dependency on phone numbers, but until then, there are options for most people to create an account w/o having a permanent number.
Google is a very bad choice because it requires a phone number on its own. Also heard that there may be additional KYC.
Are you suggesting you need a phone number to get a phone number from Google Fi?
And yeah, it’ll definitely to KYC, because that’s a federal regulation. My point is that you don’t need the number long-term, so the number will only be associated with you for like a week while the trial period lasts. So sign up for Google Fi trial, create a Signal account, then cancel the trial. That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
It creeps me the fuck out. I do not get why a service that bills itself as secure needs to know something that can be traced back to my credit card and name. I won’t use Telegram or Signal because of this.
It’s about your posture. Most people who use signal use it to have privacy from governments. They’re not hiding that they use signal, they’re hiding what they write on signal. In this case, using your phone number isn’t a big deal.
Some people, have a tighter posture, which could translate to your position. In that case, something like Briar could fit the bill.
Lastly, security and privacy are not the same thing. Google products are secure, but they are not private. Self hosted sftp, for example, is private, but may not be secure. Signal is definitely secure, at least enough for general and governmental use. So, it seems, is telegram. Signal is more private than telegram in many ways, but it is not the gold standard for privacy (because of its use of phone numbers as usernames), but it is “good enough” for the masses. The balance between good for everyone and zero-knowledge private for everyone is delicate, potentially impossible. Honestly, I don’t know if signal was able to strike that balance perfectly, but they did a much better job than many other services, certainly than those others that are accepted by the masses.
But putting a phone number in immediately exposes protesters to association. Sure, Signal can’t give out the contents of messages, but it still has the chain of contact. So if a government gets hold of this record, legally or otherwise, now you have everyone associated to a suspect phone number/person and can start rounding them up.
It’s the complete antithesis of freedom of association when there’s a record of everyone that you’ve contacted. The contents don’t enter into that problem, and I can’t see why they feel the need to keep this as part of their system. It purposely makes it impossible to use this for something like peaceful protest. So, no, it doesn’t give you privacy from governments, because governments that don’t respect freedom of association will use that information to punish dissidents.
I can’t imagine any reason to use phone numbers except to purposefully keep this chain of association for governments to use. Even Facebook doesn’t require this sort of personal proof, and it’s suspicious as hell.
Signal is the best thing going on in tech these days. I’m very glad it’s being led by Meredith Whittaker.
Did you know you can get a cool badge on your profile pic if you’re a recurring donor? $5 a month is far less than the value I get from it, but that’s all it takes for a cool badge (and knowing that you’re doing something active against the awful state of big tech today).
