“Signal is being blocked in Venezuela and Russia. The app is a popular choice for encrypted messaging and people trying to avoid government censorship, and the blocks appear to be part of a crackdown on internal dissent in both countries…”

    • ivn@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Telegram is not secure, I guess if you can listen to it better not block it.

    • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I mean it was blocked before Signal was blocked. Russia somewhat famously badly broke their Internet trying to shutdown telegram… and eventually gave up.

      I’m guessing Signal finally has enough market share to get the Russian government’s attention but not enough market share that they think the web of proxies that kept Telegram online will keep Signal online.

    • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      WhatsApp supposedly uses Signal protocol.

      Why is THAT not blocked? Certainly they wouldnt roll their own encryption and bypass Signal security protocols after having Moxie come in, right? Right???

    • MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yes, but you’ll have to install them from sources other than what governments deem official. Like F-droid.

      Now, if they block p2p traffic that’s a different story

    • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      It depends. Somehow it has to discover the peers. Other than that, they could block traffic between residential IP addresses and there goes large part of the P2P network

      • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Russia and Venezuela are huge hotbeds of piracy from populations without access or capital to access most forms of entertainment.

        Breaking P2P in this manner would basically be getting rid of the circus part of bread and circuses. Not a good move for an authoritarian.

    • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I wrote this, but I’d also like to add Drew Devault - Why I don’t trust signal. There’s a huge disconnect between what privacy advocates are saying about signal, and what reddit “privacy” communities think about it. If you read the article I linked, you’ll see its because the Open Technology Fund (a US state-run entity), actively pushes signal in privacy spaces.

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Signal is secure and anyone who says it isn’t needs to have very strong evidence. It has been audited by hundreds of people at this point.

        • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Source: trust me bro.

          Seriously tho, that’s been most of the defense of signal advocates, with zero backup other than signal’s own claims. Signal is not self-hostable, and all the data lives on a centralized, US-domiciled server, subject to NSL requests (the US issues ~ 60 of them per day).

          Unfortunately you can’t verify what their server stores, nor the metadata that they are legally required to share with the US government (which includes phone numbers, and your name and address).

          BTW if signal is secure, can you give us your phone number, so we can use it with you?

          • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Signal is end to end encrypted. Everything related to encryption happens inside the app. It doesn’t matter if the server is in mainland China it would still be secure. However, that doesn’t mean it is anonymous. Signal is pretty bad from that perspective.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Signal might be one of the most audited pieces of software in existence. Any criticism is likely either coming from or is supported by countries that fear encryption such as China, Russia and Iran.

      The big downsides of Signal are that it requires a phone number and that is depends on Signals servers. That is it. You messages are completely safe as all messagers use the same underlying cryptography.

      • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The audits mean nothing for a server domiciled in a Five-Eyes country. Signal has your phone number, and the other phone numbers you talk to (social connection graphs), and it is 100% illegal for them to tell you that they’ve been issued a national security letter divulging that information.

        • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          You shouldn’t trust a server to do your computing for you. Assume any data the server has about you to be available to all.

        • fira959@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          The entire protocol is build under the assumption that you do not need to trust the servers. Let the NSA have then, it doesnt matter. On the other hand 95% of Matrix users are hosted on Matrix.org which was not only hacked several times, but would be an ideal target for any agency to compromise. Its naiive to belive the big Matrix hosts arent compromised. The only effective defense is to build your system around the assumption that the server is compromised, which is what Signal did.

  • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Why countries that do not prosecute political dissent bock apps used by political dissenters? /s

  • whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    could matrix.org be as easily blocked, since it’s decentralized I’m wondering?

    At least it means that Signal is working as intended if they are blocking it, I guess that they don’t have back doors.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Matrix isn’t secure depending on how you use it. It also doesn’t protect individual identities terribly well.

      Simplex Chat would be the better option however the main Simplex Chat server and matrix server could end up blocked as well.

      • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Matrix is entirely self-hostable, and you can turn off both federation, and the requirements for any linkable identifiers.

        Signal by contrast requires your phone number, isn’t self-hostable, and is based in a five-eyes country.

        • Lemongrab@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Matrix doesn’t protect metadata, which is arguably just as (if not more) important than message data. Signal by contrast does protect metadata and proper implements Perfect Forward Secrecy for all chats. I do think Signal’s centralized design and phone number requirements problematic, but Signal still has many merits. Such as its massive user base for a AGPL-only project.

  • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Smart move, considering Signal is a US-hosted centralized service that has to comply with US NSL laws.

    These comments below seem to be unaware of all the issues privacy advocates have of signal.

    • ivn@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I don’t get it, are you really arguing that Russia and Venezuela are blocking Signal to protect their citizens from American snooping?

        • QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Isn’t the whole point of something like End-to-End Encryption so that not even the company themselves can read your messages?

          In that case it wouldn’t matter even if they did turn the info over.

          Edit: I read more into the page you linked. Looks like those NSLs can’t even be used to request the contents either way:

          Can the FBI obtain content—like e-mails or the content of phone calls—with an NSL?

          Not legally. While each type of NSL allows the FBI to obtain a different type of information, that information is limited to records—such as “subscriber information and toll billing records information” from telephone companies.

        • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Mass censorship is never good for civil liberties. Let people decide on there own.

          Also Signal is cryptographically sound. Many other messagers use a similar protocol

          • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            As I commented below, US security forces aren’t that interested in message content anyway, since they don’t have time to parse through every message to construct meaning. Signal does require your phone number tho, as well as message timestamps, meaning they can build social graphs of real people. Tons of metadata living on a single US-based server.

            • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              It doesn’t matter if it is US based. You shouldn’t trust the server.

              Signal has known issues. That doesn’t mean it is entirely bad though. Saying things like Signal is insecure is simply untrue. It has weaknesses but it also has the benefit of protecting your messages completely and being well established.

        • ivn@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          My question was more about the motives in this case.