They could use an LLM to lookup your HN posts and then to wrangle Emacs. Or just decrypt the text in another application - I doubt Emacs is the only platform for whatever crypto method you use. M-x rot13 ?
Oh, did I forget to mention the encryption is implemented in Emacs Lisp?
At some point, the attackers are just going to have to give up and start hitting me with a wrench. Joke's on them though - I'm an Emacs user, I like pain.
Yes, especially if you add up the ocean floors, Antarctica, Siberia and northern Canada ... all far, far more hospitable, useful, and cost-effective than anything in space.
While I agree that repeating a 60 year old achievement is pointless, one of NASA's goals for Artemis, etc. is having a platform for R&D for human exploration of Mars. There aren't other nearby large bodies on which, and around which, to work out and shake out all the new tech for Mars. R&D actually at Mars would be very expensive and slower.
Then again, that could be NASA trying to justify or make the best of a pointless program imposed on them by politicians.
An aside: Did anyone in the 1960s wonder at the bizarre choice of Apollo for a moon program? How is it that Artemis is still available as a program name?
I love modern architecture (and art); I find many older forms to be garish, focused on pointless decoration and on wealth display, rather than on the beauty of function and form. The imagination of [some] modern architecture, starting from those fundamentals, is stunning.
You don't like it, which is just as valid, but trying to turn your preference into a universal truth for humanity is not valid. Can't it be just your preference?
Why is it so important? I think the real subtext for most such comments is culture war: A reactionary take on modernism and postmodernism, trying to make them outre, outside norms, attached to political liberalism which is often the real target.
Innovation is usually greeted by reactionary responses; what's odd is that, in our world of modern double-speak, reactionary has become seen as cutting edge instead of a lack of imagination and progress, of retreat and regression. Let's go back to what we were doing 100+ years ago!
I think a lot of the reflexive distaste for the modern would be softened if we were still able to build in The Old Way, whatever that might be. People like these older brick mid rise buildings with the bit of trimming decoration. But, they just don't get built. Sometimes in NYC or chicago someplace you might see a more recent build where they tried to get those old elements down. They used brick and made it square and tried to do a little decoration, but something is missing. They didn't do the thing where they use nicer brick on the street facing side of the structure, or they didn't do the actual cement formed decorative trim pieces throughout. All the brick is laid the same instead of having some lines on the top edge turned out in a decorative way for example. The whole thing feels severely value engineered even if on paper it's actually a quality building with modern amenities and comforts.
Instead it just feels like some knowledge was lost to time and we lost the plot along the way, because there is a refusal or inability to just do what used to be done all the time in the past. Yes building codes are different, but stuff like trim or brick work or generally curb appeal shouldn't affect that. No one is asking for no sprinkler system or no hvac, just a better looking building from the outside. Many of those old buildings do get gutted and end up modern inside but maintain the old facade. People want more of that facade I think without it being a diminishing resource.
>Yes building codes are different, but stuff like trim or brick work or generally curb appeal shouldn't affect that.
It very much does, unfortunately. In the US, the places with the highest housing shortages are mired with endless red tape, discretionary reviews, parking requirements etc. that substantially increase costs. This leaves little room for anything else, including aesthetics.
Developers have gotten very good at navigating this, but it has also led to them sticking to basic "good enough" designs like the five-over-ones we see when new apartments are built.
I'm not sure that squares what I see in these places. Seems to me that pretty much everywhere has the same red tape. Who is letting you build without consideration of fire safety, egress points, floor area ratios, parking minimums, etc? Everywhere across the country has such "red tape" and regulation.
But what I notice in the housing crisis cities is that this is almost irrelevant. Whatever the actual limits of the zoning are, that is pretty much what you see built. Regulation be damned, it will get bulldozed through and built if it is allowed to be built in these cities. And the real only dam preventing the flood of development becomes these zoning laws that finally say "no" to development happening at all. The red tape is just cost add that gets passed to the buyer. It isn't like there are a glut of homes too expensive to sell in these places (what you'd see if red tape were really the issue), quite the opposite, after all.
Parking minimums are how we ended up with cities that are substantially composed of car storage, instead of housing which people need to live. There's little reason to force developers to build car storage when what people need is housing. People in cities get along just fine without a car, and it's possible to adopt a similar model to Japan that requires people to prove they have a parking spot available before they can register a car.
>Whatever the actual limits of the zoning are, that is pretty much what you see built.
Exactly, the limits are set very low, and so much red tape, that so little housing gets built, which is why we have a shortage.
I think that's an essential point, though maybe for a different reason.
I think the cause may be that most real estate developers are not students of architecture and also are looking to minimize costs and time. Even if the developer wants to build something beautiful, cash flow (burn rate) is a big problem: You borrow millions or more, and have no revenue for the entire time it takes to build the building. Getting credit is hard enough. Do you go more in debt, and possibly for longer, for the nice trim? Does the banker also care about architecture and see that as a good investment?
Also, the trim then and trim now probably were designed with the same thing in mind: Whatever is least expensive with current technology. For example, an architect once explained to me that interior trim, for example where the wall meets the ceiling, has a purpose - it covers flaws in the join. Modern techniques and materials allowed us to eliminate it.
Most importantly, speaking of innovation and technology generally, IMHE what you say is an almost universal experience: Often it's not the new thing that is the problem, it's that the old seems carelessly discarded. All its benefits and nuance; all the skill and expertise; all the deep understanding and appreciation that comes from generations and lifetimes spent developing and using it, that enriched our lives; all lost. Think of poetry, which used to be far more popular - now people barely read it much less have any deep understanding of it. People who would have been poets are now doing something else; who could even mentor you if you wanted to be a poet?
There's a converse effect too, though - because conservatives tend to attack modernist and postmodernist art, liberals tend to defend even things that are too ridiculous to be seriously defended.
It's not "fascism" to wince and shrug at the taped banana. It's just common sense. But if you insist that everyone who does so is secretly motivated by some kind of bigotry, you end up pushing them towards the right wingers anyway.
Ugly is in the right of the beholder when it comes to individuals, but societies also have collective preferences.
> It's not "fascism" to wince and shrug at the taped banana.
Agreed, though your comment does much more than wince and shrug:
> too ridiculous to be seriously defended
Humans are very social animals and we follow social norms, like a herd moving together. Look how similar everyone's clothing is: Nobody is on 5th Avenue in a loin cloth or Elizabethan outfits (unless intentionally violating norms). Why do we all chose to wear the same things? We follow norms.
How do we signal and punish things outside norms, or shape norms to exclude something? Ridicule. Sophisticated public communicators consciously use it - you can see it in the way some conservative publications depict trans people. Their intent, through ridicule, is to push them outside norms - a foundation of facism, normalizing persecution and even brutality and murder. Facists also did/do that to art - it's the same thinking (though not everyone who ridicules art is a fascist - the fascists take advantage of that bit of human nature.)
In your comment you aren't just wincing and shrugging, but literally ridiculing (to be clear, I'm not calling you a fascist in any sense)
> It's just common sense.
Which means, common norms. There's nothing special about them; it's just a social phenomenon. Every innovator, including in tech, faces the usual response:
- First they laugh at you (ridicule you)
- Then they say it's not in the orthodoxy (if ridicule fails,
you go from being ridiculous to being a threat to norms)
- Then they say they knew it all along (you're now within norms)
The same happens with social change, like women working - Ridicule, then a threat to norms, then normalized. What was absurd becomes normalized. In art, Impressionists were once objects of ridicule; now of course it's arguably the most popular style of painting in human history.
> societies also have collective preferences
They don't. People try to make preferences look more universal to justify their own beliefs or simplify thinking, but it's always far more diverse. Look at how the Democratic party attempts to lump simple demographic groups (e.g., black men) into one stereotype of political thinking - and ~25% voted for Trump in 2024.
Societies do have norms, which are very changeable. Look how the far right has changed norms around the world in just a short time. It's not by accident - I've seen guides on how to normalize antisemitism, for example. The leading fascists in history, the Nazi party, had very consciously designed propaganda to do the same.
If someone wants to be an innovator (and have a truly free mind, IMHO), they need to step back and see norms, their dynamics, and what's beyond them, and learn to see what's outside without the filters, to treasure it as potential future innovation. To look at things on their merits, not at whether they are inside or outside.
At the debut of the first play by Harold Pinter, The Homecoming, much of the audience booed and left at intermission. Pinter, the great innovator, booed the audience. (Or so the story goes.)
Wince and shrug is a politely expressed ridicule, yes.
And yes, common norms are a social phenomenon (and that is exactly what the "collective preference" of society is). And yes they do change. However they are not completely random, either. And if you have had something being pushed on people for well over a century, to the point where most experts insist that it's better, but your average person from the street still thinks it's ridiculous, I think the reasonable conclusion is that it's not completely random.
As a Satanist, I am very much in favor of rejecting norms in general. But that doesn't mean that literally anything that is outside of the norm is better!
> You don't like it, which is just as valid, but trying to turn your preference into a universal truth for humanity is not valid. Can't it be just your preference?
What if it's almost everyone's preference? Except for the high priests of architecture who have their own agenda. Then we end up living in a world full of buildings they design for themselves that most of us dislike.
> Why is it so important?
Because the rest of us have to live with it at street level, every day.
> A reactionary take on modernism and postmodernism, trying to make them outre, outside norms, attached to political liberalism which is often the real target.
But they are the norm and have been for some time. It's time to challenge that norm.
If we go back to (for example) Le Corbusier, we see this sort of thing thrown around in discussions all the time - you just don't accept innovation, you're hung up on traditionalism, get with the way of the future. Only it's not the future, it's one part of the past, and for all there was noble intent behind some of this stuff, we've had adequate time to judge the outcomes as lacking.
I find it very irritating looking at fake or overdone things. I don't think that's minority. Each era of architecture was suited in some way to the building materials and technology of it's time. I do not understand this movement to rob concrete, steel and plywood of it's natural voice and force it to conform to design styles made for different substances and tech.
> I find it very irritating looking at fake or overdone things. I don't think that's minority.
1. I think the onus is on you to prove that it's not a minority, in the face of people overwhelmingly favouring older, more ornamented designs.
2. Beauty does not have to feel 'fake' and ugliness can be very authentic indeed, especially when it comes to concrete. I'd take a faux-neogothic revival over another period of brutalism without even blinking.
It's a hideous blot on the landscape, the wind blows through mercilessly and constantly, it feels desolate and dystopian to be around. It smells of piss and depression. It's notorious for drug dealing. But someone managed to get it listed and protected anyway so now the town's stuck with it permanently.
> I do not understand this movement to rob concrete, steel and plywood of it's natural voice and force it to conform to design styles made for different substances and tech.
Perhaps we don't have to force it to be 'traditional' but it's clear that the 'natural voice' afforded by these materials and the current set of design languages in architecture result in ugly buildings that the large majority of people just do not like.
We don't have to look at the overwhelming preference for traditional buildings and take away from that "We must go back to exactly that", but we should at least take away "People don't like what's being made now, we can do better"
And if there is no way for concrete, steel and plywood to express more beauty then perhaps we could think about using other things that might. Either way, ploughing on with creating spaces and edifices that the majority think are ugly and worse than what came before, either because of a professional disdain for what humans actually like to be around, or some high-minded ideas about material expression seems ... well, pretty pig-headed.
That building looks normal to me. Any building would feel ugly if its less inhabited and full of druggies and homeless.
Its not about high mindedness. Tell me suppose you took steel started making cuboids out of it and sanding it rough then stacking it with cement. Does that in any way do justice to steel or is it a complete waste and misuse of the substance? What these people are trying to imagine as their ideal are not as extreme as forcing steel to behave like brick but it is on the same spectrum. Neoclassical buildings are another good example. They are completely fake. I would bet they mix wildly different centuries apart greek and roman designs. And we know they are steel and concrete structures internally just facaded over with marble, not structural load bearing all-marble like the original greek stuff. Brutalism is just a more honest form of those massive neoclassical buildgings, the scale and power of it minus the fake marble nonsense. But I am not even saying you have to be brutalist, it's just one example of an honest medium.
If I only have hand tools and solid wood, I would make Colonial furniture for example. If I have stainless steel tubing and plywood I would make bent tube legs and plywood rests.
Plywood is an amazing substance why do people hate it? It uses wood to make large panels that lack the directional weakness of wood and to quite an extent the movement issues of wood are also avoided. Concrete is pourable rock. Steel is a flexible and easy to cut and join structural substance. You may disagree with certain design ideas that use these substances snd cwn say we could try different designs but I think its ridiculous to cargo cult brick and mortar or marble for instance (which are perfectly fine materials for their tooling and design) and wholly reject modern substances.
Brick cuboids don't grown on trees or are found in nature either. I would say the funniest one is people calling structures like hypar shaped halls as unnatural. That's as natural as it gets, nature itself leaves the hypar the only shape that is optimal to be supported atop a grid of columns, not the flat roof. These curves are more natural that flat and square walls. At least people should be wrested of the naturalist argument if they use it against designs like this.
> Any building would feel ugly if its less inhabited and full of druggies and homeless.
You have cause and effect backwards IMHO. The brutalist housing monstrosities in the UK, with the notable exception of the Barbican which is more gentrified, create the conditions that encourage this. They create grim, cold, bleak, colourless liminal spaces. Their look of decay doesn't inspire community, care for the place you live or happiness, instead they are dull, oppressive monoliths that people piss on. And the story is repeated across the country.
> Does that in any way do justice to steel
Who cares? Is "justice to steel" a design goal? Why?
> Neoclassical buildings are another good example. They are completely fake.
And?
> Brutalism is just a more honest form of those massive neoclassical buildgings, the scale and power of it minus the fake marble nonsense. But I am not even saying you have to be brutalist, it's just one example of an honest medium.
And again, who cares? Is "honesty" a design goal? Why is that more important than creating human-friendly spaces with a bit of beauty to them?
I'm not arguing against the use of specific materials, I am arguing against allowing the materials to dictate a heavily disliked outcome. Are we really saying "Everyone hates what we build now but we actually can't do any better"?
Because that's not what I get from discussions like these. What I get is "Everyone hates what we build because <insert piece of philosophical sophism that explains why everyone else is wrong>"
Its nonsense. If a building has people and businesses, it is good, if it doesn't and has druggies it will feel bad. An unmaintained mansion with druggies will be equally creepy. I am not sure how you are saying a place is inviting of druggies, what are the physical designs that you think make it so? If you say lack of buyers, then to a druggie wny structure is good enough.
I find crttain kinds of fakeness disgusting. I am entitled ot my opinion as are you to yours if you prefer fakeness.
I think McMansions are honest. Stick framing and plywood is a functional, affordable and most people seem to find it looks okay.
If people disagree with steel and concrete, nothing is stopping them from pooling money to build a brick building. I don't think zoning should be an issue, if a place allows skyscrapers it probably will allow your brick multistorey building. If its liked so much why aren't people funding it?
Either this design is too expensive or its not liked enough.
And I disagree, I find neoclassical buildings cold and inhuman, I think its actually its itnended design too, to overwhelm with sheer scale and induce despair. But I see it as just a design choice not a religion ir existential theory. Gothic is even more deliberately hostile looking.
The barrier to entry for interior is even lower, who is stopping you from buying tools or commisining a cabinet shop to build your vision?
Brutalism is perfectly human friendly, its a building, its meant to house people and take them in and out of their office or apartment. If anything I'd say brutalist structures are probably more walkabale than other multi storey structures. What you make of the interior is up to you. Paint your home as you want, put any furniture you like, as with any other building.
What specific way do you think brutalism or any other building style you would prefer as example is not human friendly?
> I am not sure how you are saying a place is inviting of druggies, what are the physical designs that you think make it so?
The concrete voids, semi-open outdoor stairwells and other weird half-hidden spaces in many of these buildings appear to encourage a lot of antisocial behaviour like drug-dealing and urination.
The greyness and water-staining leaves an area looking deprived, and against a (usually) grey and water-stained sky it makes these areas feel lifeless and barren. Especially where the wind constantly whistles through their straight-lined, hard-surfaced open plazas.
The general ugliness of them just depresses the human spirit, kills community cohesion. People don't care about them. So they come to expect the lifts to smell of piss and the stairways to be full of dealers.
The fact that you don't think building design could have such an effect is deeply weird. Have you ever had to live near any brutalist buildings? They take down your mood just by being near them.
> >I find crttain kinds of fakeness disgusting
> And I disagree, I find neoclassical buildings cold and inhuman
We've already established you're the voice of the minority here.
> If its liked so much why aren't people funding it?
That's a very interesting question, why are we stuck in a world where governments and large companies are building modernist stuff that people in general don't like? I think partly it's probably cost, I think partly it's down to the overwhelming majority of architects being taught this particular gospel. But beyond that I don't know.
(The idea that it's a choice of the same individuals expressing their preferences is somewhat silly, most people will never in their lifetimes have any sort of meaningful impact on new buildings in a city)
> What specific eay do you think brutalism or any other building style you would prefer as example is not human friendly?
The whole philosophy of form following function is misdirected from the outset. Beauty, attractiveness is an important part of function in human habitation.
And you still haven't answered my question - why is 'honesty' or 'justice to steel' in the slightest bit important? Why should we prioritise that over things like happiness? Why should we not use artifice and skill to make spaces that are attractive, warm and friendly, regardless of material?
I am not talking about some abstract honesty to some subtance. I am saying if someone dislikes an architectural style they shouldn't blame it on the materials. Some people like wood for a rustic look. I can make a cabinet with wood that uses all curves and circular openings and so on, I bet this person would hate it, but that doesn't mean they hate wood.
I like warm and humane spaces..i would need to see specific examples to see how brutalism violates it. I think if the situation in your locality is so bad that any public space will be taken over by druggies is not the buildings fault. You should say then that you need highly enclosed and guarded structures to prevent this problem.
> I am saying if someone dislikes an architectural style they shouldn't blame it on the materials.
Cool, then we’ll blame it on the choice of how and where to use those materials? So when there’s an architectural style that for example is very heavy on chunky raw concrete, is pretty universally despised and has negative social consequences, it’s fair to say “we should probably stop doing that, it seems like a bad idea” rather than some abstract verbiage about doing justice to the raw materials?
Because to be clear - I don’t care about the materials, I care about the outcomes. If someone can use concrete/steel/ply to make something attractive that isn’t going to degrade is a short handful of years, go for it.
> I think if the situation in your locality is so bad that any public space will be taken over by druggies is not the buildings fault.
Nope, repeated pattern across the whole country, for reasons given and now explained multiple times.
Do you believe architecture can have any effect on a place? How people feel in that place, how that then translates into how they act in those spaces, positive or negative?
If yes, then perhaps it’s time to admit that some styles can be on the negative side.
Many countries in Asia use concrete by default. People don't seem to have any problems with it.
Architecture obviously impacts a person's mood and behavior, eg unwalkable architecture would force a lot of driving. I just am not certain if brutalism can be said to cause whatever negative issues you are claiming it does. At least I am sure the movement wasn't designed to be anti human in any way.
> eg unwalkable architecture would force a lot of driving
That's purely a utilitarian take. You don't believe that design language could ever have an effect on mood?
You said yourself you find neoclassical and gothic styles induce despair. What do you think would be the long term effect of living somewhere that induced despair in you?
> At least I am sure the movement wasn't designed to be anti human in any way.
A system is what it does, not what it was designed to do. The thinking behind it was often utopian, there was high-minded talk of "streets in the sky" and the idea of giving everyone their own front door to the outside, as if they had their own private house on a raised terrace.
The results were not in line with the expectations.
Lack of drivability isn't just a mechanical thing, it shapes how a locality lives and moves, the kind of community that can form or not and also mood eg whether distances cause a feeling of isolation or one of not feeling cooped up and so on.
I understand what you are trying to get at, its just that I simply am unable to understand the mood of despair as associated with brutalism. Maybe others feel otherwise.
> I understand what you are trying to get at, its just that I simply am unable to understand the mood of despair as associated with brutalism
We've established that your view is the minority position and that people in general prefer more ornamented architecture (that's what the article is about). We've established that you understand the premise of feelings of despair caused by architecture.
If you can't put two and two together to understand that other people feel that way when confronted with brutalist architecture, and that being in/around it might affect their lives, it feels like either a lack of imagination or simple obstinacy.
As I said earlier, I doubt you've had to live near many of these architectural tumours, or you might have more insight.
I didn't say "a grand time". It would also be fascinating to live through the Fall of Rome, the Pazzi conspiracy, the Black Death, or any number of other unpleasant things. I'm pretty on-edge about the interesting times I'm living in right now, but they are certainly interesting.
I've always wondered about similar designs: Doesn't calculating a hash of every block, on every read and every write, create lots of overhead? Why isn't that a problem?
Some systems have dedicated crypto co-processors for confidentiality (encryption) - e.g., I think drives with FDE, and I think Apple Silicon SoCs might have them. Can those be repurposed for hash calculation? What about systems that lack them?
Yes, it adds some overhead, but it's fine IME. Granted, it helps that compression can significantly speed up performance. (I was very confused the first time I saw ZFS reading data faster than its drives were physically capable of, because it turned out the CPU could decompress faster than the drives could read)
Programs like filesystems typically have their own schedulers that aggregate writes, it would be an extreme performance hit if they wrote each checksum individually, as a separate I/O operation. They are certainly bundled with some other data that needs to be written.
And if you are concerned about the compute rather than storage, then writing to a block device is still slow enough so that computing a checksum isn't important performance-wise.
> LLMs do not desire, they hacked websites because OpenAI/Anthropic let them.
"let them" could imply that the LLMs wanted to do it.
The intent is on the part of the people. The LLMs did it because OpenAI/Anthropic intended them to do it and designed them to do it, and we can assume specifically instructed them to do it.
As the people controlling the machine, and as the world's leading experts, I think we can assume intent until proven otherwise.
Notice other bad behavior, which would be undesireable to the vendors, doesn't happen: How about simple rudeness? Trolling lies? SHOUTING!
> Is it your expectation that E2E is broken by these "dragnet surveillance" networks? Surely not?
While I disagree with these critiques of Signal, the surveillance networks can capture metadata - who talks to who and when - without breaking E2E. The metadata is as valuable as the data.
I think Signal has a feature to protect users, but I can't imagine how it works if the attacker can see all parties' Internet connections.
It's true someone snooping at either end of a conversation could over time correlate timing and sizes to show that two users are communicating, but that's the most they can do. Signal is not peer to peer so you're not connecting to your recipient, and signal itself has enough raw volume that simply correlating sizes and timing of a small number of messages wouldn't really be sufficient to know who is communicating with who.
I think they could make that significantly more difficult by adding csprng delays and padding to the messages. That way you can't really effectively correlate timing and sizes without direct access to signals inner workings. I'm not sure what signal's actual throughput is, but if think as a paid feature it could be economical.
Another crazier way would be to send every message to a large number random latched recipients. Good way to 1000x your bandwidth.
> The metadata is as valuable as the data.
This can be true if you are able to get ahold of a user's device and access their signal messages. It's not true in most other cases. I don't particularly care if you know that I am talking to someone specific as much as I care that you don't know what I'm saying.
> Ex-NSA Chief: 'We Kill People Based on Metadata'
> Hayden made the remark after saying he agreed with the idea that metadata - the information collected by the NSA about phone calls and other communications that does not include content - can tell the government "everything" about anyone it's targeting for surveillance, often making the actual content of the communication unnecessary.
Isn't it? I think it has a setting, disabled by default, to proxy connections via a Signal server. If you're not doing that ... it must be P2P? Probably with the IP address of the person you're communicating with in the header of every packet?
This setting is "Always relay calls", and the only difference it makes is for already established calls. Messages and calls setup always go through Signal's servers.
> the surveillance networks can capture metadata - who talks to who and when
If this is part of your threat model then I would suggest a different tool such as SimpleX since it uses onion routing and can be configured to always use private routing/relays.
One idea I had for an improvement to Tor wrt sybils was to split traffic up and send different pieces to different nodes, possibly using different circuits for the pieces, so that even if you have control over all the nodes in one path, you most likely won't have full control over all the paths it sprays the pieces over.
> Private message routing is, effectively, a two-hop onion packet routing.
And actually, it's even better than that:
> Private message routing routes packets (each message is one 16kb packet), not sockets. Unlike Tor and VPN, it does not create circuits between your client and destination servers. The forwarding server creates one shared session between itself and the destination, and forwards all messages from you and other clients to that destination server, mixing messages from many clients into a single TCP session.
> As each message uses its own random encryption key and random (non-sequential) identifier, the destination server cannot link multiple message queue addresses to the same client. At the same time, the forwarding server cannot observe which (and how many) addresses on the destination server your client sends messages to, thanks to e2e encryption between the client and destination server. In that regard, this design is similar to onion routing, but with per-packet anonymity, not per-circuit.
> This design is similar to mixnets (e.g. Nym network), and it is tailored to the needs of message routing, providing better transport anonymity than general-purpose networks, like Tor or VPN. You still can use Tor or VPN to connect to known servers, to protect your IP address from them.
Nobody uses that and I think it was pre-mined. They should have implemented Monero but the UX isn't there. Maybe a Monero light wallet server run by Signal.
They probably avoided Monero to not attract the additional scrutiny. They don't even accept donations in Monero.
Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Signal is not robust for metadata protection. Neither do they advertise anonymity. They take steps to protect metadata but it's nothing compared to SimpleX.
If it's "the feds", then how? There's reproducible builds on all platforms except iOS so we know the source code is what's running on our devices. Can you point to the code where the E2EE is compromised?
They are the largest messenger that has E2EE backups by default.
If I was the NSA, I would be using the fact that signal uses AWS for their backend combined with the cudgel that .us.gov has with the AWS govcloud contract to mandate that all traffic to and from signal's backend also gets routed to NSA traffic analysis servers, which could then be correlated with other sources like ISP data to get a pretty complete record of all Signal message metadata.
To be clear, I use signal pretty heavily, but that's because my threat model doesn't really include competent .us.gov actors. I don't think that they'd either prove they're doing this or go through the trouble of parallel construction over anything in my messages or who I'm talking to.
Nobody is arguing the e2ee isn't valid, its useful as a metadata collection platform, which is all they care about. Former NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden famously stated: “We kill people based on metadata." and then he tried to hold back a smile and said "but not with this metadata". It's usefulness as a metadata collection platform becomes much less useful if people don't trust it, so of course it's secure.
If you can convince as many of your enemies (the american people who politically organize against them) to use the same platform, your job becomes easier than having to ETL from 20 different privacy platforms..
To be honest, I use signal, I have nothing to hide but it is useful in that nobody can spoof me (easily). I even talk to my 60 year old mother on signal. It has it's uses. But the EFF is definitely a federal psyop to get people using tools and techniques they control.
Just look at the people who created TOR, they're all feds. All these projects are funded by feds. These tools are advertised in CIA recruitment campaigns, they are literal weapons to circumvent nation state firewalls and deliver psychological weapons, overthrow governments or allow covert recruitment of foreign traitors.
I'll see your conspiracy theory and raise you one: What if the feds fund tech privacy projects specifically so that people like you won't trust them, and instead embrace privacy nihilism?
This is a known strategy of the Kremlin, by the way. They fund opposition groups which protest them, and then leak the fact of that funding so that people who are genuinely upset at the Kremlin get confused about who is captured opposition and who is legitimate.
It can be a signal in some cases, but funding sources are not a reliable way to make a conclusion about a group's motivations.
>Signal is for protecting opposition groups that help in regime change operations
SMS registration flow is trivially blocked in places where regimes are controlling telecom infra. And Twilio is unreliable in dozens of places for non-political reasons. Signal is very first-world centric from this point of view.
True, if they're not even going to allow that for payment then they might as well remove it from the app altogether. Because what's the point if they don't even believe in it themselves.
reply