Post
I get the impression that most people don't understand how important metadata such as phone numbers is when it comes to privacy.
For example, by requiring phone numbers, Signal, despite its good encryption, inherently builds a social graph. The server operators, or anyone who gets that data, can see a map of who is talking to whom. The content is secure, but the connections are not.
馃У
@yogthos As far as I understand, the social graph in Signal has been inaccessible to Signal's servers and employees for years. See https://signal.org/blog/sealed-sender/ for one piece; I'm not sure what all they've done since then. But as I recall they've asserted that the only information they are technically capable of providing in response to law enforcement requests is the timestamp of when you last logged in鈥攏othing about who you've communicated with.
So while you're right that securing metadata is critical for privacy, I think critiquing Signal in particular about it is misguided.
@jamey as I've explained here, sealed sender does not actually solve the problem https://social.marxist.network/@yogthos/115346473586621053
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
