wonderingwanderer

Fuck.

You'll have to take that up with John Roberts regarding Citizen's United...

Instacart is the same thing but you can choose your grocery store and you're not supporting amazon.

I used to like Whole Foods :(

I don't shop at Sprout's anymore either since I found out they donate to the GOP...

If it's sending 0.0kb of background data, then the client is not communicating clandestinely with the server.

That's so interesting. Data kind of blows my mind. Like, how could all that information travel over wires or through the air and not get mixed up with other information on its way to its destination?

Is that vulnerable to an attack if a hacker gets their public key and intercepts the data traffic? Or can it only be used to encrypt but not decrypt?

Or are the added layers of complexity designed specifically to prevent that from happening?

This is why I like open-source, because people who know more about it than I do can check everything over and say whether it's good.

It sounds like you're contradicting yourself now. You're right, signal is more secure because its source code is open-source and auditable. So what's the issue? It seems you've been arguing otherwise, and you're just now coming around to it without admitting that you were wrong in the first place.

The client-side app is also open-source and auditable, and you can monitor outgoing traffic on your devise to see whether the signal app is sending data that it shouldn't. It sounds like people have verified that it doesn't do that, but if you don't want to take their word for it then why don't you see for yourself?

Now I'm curious: how does the person you're messaging get the same key to decrypt the message you send?

I'm genuinely curious.

The "exploit being used" is closed-source, proprietary code sending data where it says it doesn't.

People have already explained to you how signal's open-source, auditable, and reproducible code prevents the possibility of a similar exploit.

You're the smug fool who doesn't understand cybersecurity. How much is zuck paying you to say "signal's just as bad as whatapp"?

You're talking about E2E encryption as if it prevents side-channel attacks

That's literally what E2E encryption does. In order to attack it from outside you would have to break the encryption itself, and modern encryption is so robust that it would require quantum computing to break, and that capability hasn't been developed yet.

The only reason the other commenter's words sound like spam to you is because you don't understand it, which you plainly reveal when you say "(as long as there isn't a backdoor in the published [audited] code)

That'll be a good use for all the cheap RAM that will become available after the AI bubble crashes and tech companies have to liquidate their data centers.

Self-host a small FOSS LLM, train it on peer-reviewed journals, hook it up to some solar panels, do some programming magic, and save the world!