|
Top-level
 @inthehands I'd assume the same of Signal, to be honest. You're not safe and secure against a nation-state actor, especially not running software from that country communicating through servers run in that country. The question is if you're worth them exposing that operation (you're probably not). 8 comments
  Disagree. The question is whether you're high-profile enough that them compromising you (using a tool they own, in an environment they control) would result in their "operation" being "exposed" to a degree that would result in their operation being disrupted. If you're anything like me, probably not. (There's an entire class of people who can get disappeared in plain sight and everyone will automatically hallucinate their own thought-terminating explanation. Sucks) @pettter @inthehands While I agree that it's good to expect compromise of whatever technology you're using, I don't think this take is really helpful. The assumption that everything is compromised, apart from discussing strategies for dealing with it, just takes away our ability to make informed decisions. We have limited knowledge of the capabilities of the relevant threat actors, so we have to weight the probability that a particular implementation is still secure. |
Gregory's Server
@pettter @inthehands signal lead dev Moxie(an Israeli citizen) took millions from the cia. It’s got a backdrop.