• dogs0n@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Unfortunately, I don’t get most of your refetences, but sure you can find similarities in wildy different things.

    Signal being easy to rely on is its biggest benefit. No one will adopt something that’s more complex, but I don’t think extra complexity would offer better security for the average person. More complexity just means more things to go wrong.

    People can be deceieved anywhere in their life, this isn’t synonymous to an end to end encrypted chat.

    Backdoors do exist and they are obviously bad, but Signal choosing to leave the market before implementing one sounds best to me.

    state security service once told me that in those services cryptography is never the basis of a system. It can only be a secondary part.

    Obviously I’m no smarter than this person, but without cryptography how is any “secure” project actually “secure”. The only thing more important that I can imagine would be the physical location of a server (for example) being highly protected from bad actors.

    In the end, I personally think having an easy to use platform that is secure gives everyone amazing power to recoup their free speech wherever is it eroded.