Elon Musk Urges Followers to Drop Facebook for Signal (digitaltrends.com) 98
What's the world's richest man up to? Digital Trends reports:
Tech CEO Elon Musk has urged his almost 42 million Twitter followers to use secure messaging app Signal instead of Facebook products. In a series of tweets, Musk shared a meme referencing Facebook's role in the spread of misinformation leading to the attack on Congress this week and suggested people should use the Signal app.
The tweets seem to have been prompted by a recent change to Facebook's privacy policy. As reported by The Hacker News, the new updates allow more sharing of data between Facebook and its partner company WhatsApp, including the sharing of phone numbers, interactions on the platform, information about mobile devices used to access the service, and IP addresses. If WhatsApp users do not agree to the data sharing, their accounts are disabled.
Musk has been vocally critical of Facebook in the past, saying that he chose to delete Facebook accounts for SpaceX and Tesla in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018. He has also had spats with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg personally, the two of them having sniped at each other over Twitter and other social media platforms several times in the past.
The tweets seem to have been prompted by a recent change to Facebook's privacy policy. As reported by The Hacker News, the new updates allow more sharing of data between Facebook and its partner company WhatsApp, including the sharing of phone numbers, interactions on the platform, information about mobile devices used to access the service, and IP addresses. If WhatsApp users do not agree to the data sharing, their accounts are disabled.
Musk has been vocally critical of Facebook in the past, saying that he chose to delete Facebook accounts for SpaceX and Tesla in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018. He has also had spats with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg personally, the two of them having sniped at each other over Twitter and other social media platforms several times in the past.
Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Signal is a better program than What's App, security wise.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait, BAReFO0t? I have no clue who that is. Never mind the above.
Re: Good (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
That message thread is bullshit, Signal does encrypt messages locally "Once the messages are received and decrypted on a user's device, they are stored locally in a SQLite database that is encrypted with SQLCipher. The key to decrypt this database is also stored locally on the user's device and can be accessed if the device is unlocked." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I would expect that the messages will only stay unlocked while I have Signal open and aft
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
See the message from BAReFO0t on how Cellebrite was (possibly) able to read messages on Signal. It appears they didn't directly read the messages but read the files stored by the OS from the program.
You don’t need Cellebrite if you have an unlocked device in front of you - and THAT is exactly what Cellebrite actually stated was the case.
Then they apparently realized how lame that made them look, so they removed the post.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. See the message from BAReFO0t [slashdot.org]
Let me help you out for the future. Nearly 100% of what BAReFO0t says is wrong. I've often joked that he is a social experiment since actual ignorant people who talk about topics they know nothing about are occasionally right purely by accident, yet BAReFO0t bucks even that trend. I actually think he's intelligently attempting to come up with the most incorrect posts he can imagine. For a real laugh read up on all his posts on DNS, and note that people have been correcting his bullshit for years.
Re: (Score:1)
WhatsApp is a better program than Signal on account of everyone in my country using it. Very few people care about security. They care about network effects.
Re: (Score:2)
Your requirements and priorities meet your short-term needs, but security and privacy is a long-term problem with many facets and demands many compromises. I recommend an approach that covers multiple networks simultaneously until you can deprecate the obsolete one. (tl;dr - why not both)
Re: (Score:2)
No my requirements meet a fundamental need. The world's most secure and private communications program is utterly useless if there's no one to communicate with it.
The problem with your proposal is that fundamentally the world has voted with their wallets and they have sent a clear message: They don't care. If signal = WhatsApp + extra privacy you won't get people to switch, you'll never obsolete the former if people don't have some deep desire to switch to the latter. Never underestimate just what WhatsApp
Re: Good (Score:2)
However (Score:2)
If you value privacy don't do anything online.
Re: (Score:3)
Start by not doing social media: that alone gets you 50% of the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Another 50% is not to buy anything online.
Re: However (Score:2)
Dont use a credit card either...
Re: However (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the amount of CCTV outside and the number of COVIDiots running around I think buying online is probably the lesser of two evils.
Re: (Score:2)
I still use my grocery store club card for discounts. I hardly am one to practice what I preach.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Nobody is fooled. (Score:5, Insightful)
See what? Unsworth (who never met Musk) went on international TV, told Musk to shove his charity up his arse, and lied about him getting kicked out of the dive site. Musk responded with immature name calling. What exactly does this have to do with Signal vs. WhatsApp, and the long-running feud between Musk and Zuck?
Re: Nobody is fooled. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot: whaa whaa, Musk's ego! Orange man bad!
Re:Nobody is fooled. (Score:5, Insightful)
it's clear this is about his ego and personal animosity, like most of the shit he does, and not any principled stance.
Christ, mate! All he did was write "Use Signal" and later reposted an image meme about Facebook misinformation. Are such basic posts really "about his ego and personal animosity"?
Literally anyone could have posted these things but you chose to go off about it because you saw a particular person's name attached to the message. Your bias is on clear display.
Re: (Score:1)
Done, thank you! (Score:3)
Should have done this a long time ago. Unfortunately my children's discussion groups are managed via WhatsApp ... The only option is now to spread the word about Signal.
One user switched to Signal (Score:2)
Three guesses who.
Which is better? Signal or Telegram? (Score:1)
Are there others even better still?
Re:Which is better? Signal or Telegram? (Score:5, Informative)
It uses an open standard for encryption [wikipedia.org] and encrypts all messages [wikipedia.org]. Telegram runs its own encryption protocol [wikipedia.org] and only end-to-end encrypts secret chats [telegram.org]. Both apps are open-sourced but Telegram's backend is not [medium.com].
Signal is recommended by Snowden & Bruce Schneier [signal.org].
Re: Which is better? Signal or Telegram? (Score:1)
I suggest to make you research better. How can he know that message are stored unencrypted?
The privacy policy states exactly the opposite, the messages are *heavily encrypted* - https://telegram.org/privacy#4... [telegram.org]. It's a matter whom you choose to believe. Certainly not a random guy from the Internet.
"While Telegram servers will handle this end-to-end encrypted data to deliver it to the recipient â" or store it in the case of Telegram Passport data, we have no ways of deciphering the actual information.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest to make you research better. How can he know that message are stored unencrypted?
The privacy policy states exactly the opposite, the messages are *heavily encrypted* - https://telegram.org/privacy#4... [telegram.org]. It's a matter whom you choose to believe. Certainly not a random guy from the Internet.
My claim was that Telegram's backend servers are not open source, not that the messages are not encrypted on that platform. That is a different matter we cannot comment on and shows exactly the power of open source. We don't have to choose who to believe, as you put it.
But I agree the link was not optimal. Here is a better one, from Telegram itself: https://telegram.org/faq#q-why-not-open-source-everything [telegram.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Signal is recommended by Snowden & Bruce Schneier [signal.org].
Worth noting is that NSA AND Snowden recommends the Signal app.
Re: Which is better? Signal or Telegram? (Score:1)
Telegam is closed source.
Encryption is not enabled by default.
If enabled, you can only message when both parties are online and unlocked with Telegram running. So in practice... never.
The encryption is a custom one. And I haven't seen anythinf suggesting the existence of the required competence to roll their own encryption.
It's not even a contest.
Telegram doesn't even qualify.
What I see (Score:3)
is two ultrarich guys having a feud, and asking millions of shmucks to take side, as if it mattered to them - and sadly, millions of shmucks probably do.
Re: What I see (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well as we’ve seen with a certain other very rich individual in a position of authority, some people’s egos manage to be both hyper-inflated and hyper-brittle at the same time.
and Musk will call Zuckerberg a... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Signal not anonymous (Score:3, Interesting)
Signal is still aggravating because it is impossible to have anonymous accounts. I want to be able to message someone without it being tied to anything traceable to my real person.. like my damn phone number. I don't want a relationship with signal or whisper inc. or anyone. I want both security AND anonymity if I choose to be anonymous to someone. If it can't be anonymous, then it is not TRULY private.
Re: (Score:2)
That’s not what Signal is about. However you could always fork the code.
Re: Signal not anonymous (Score:2)
Actually ... it is what Signal is about too.
See my comment below.
TL;DR: Moxie's working on it. And almost done. See bug. Donate to accelerate.
Re:Signal not anonymous (Score:5, Insightful)
That stance is plain greed, just there. Maybe even insidious. I can accept you want anonymity vs. the 'system'/all third parties and even consider it a right. But anonymity vs. your communications partner is a damn degraded form of communication and is why spam, advertising and unsolicited mail 'works'. Plus it promotes all kinds of nastyness, like identity theft. At least consider a certification system for mutual trust between the communication partners (like SSL/HTTPS for web traffic). So, no anonymous accounts in my book. I want to know who I'm dealing with! Come back when I can.
Re: (Score:1)
The war on anonymous communication is definitely on. The online world is quickly moving towards a "papers please" system at every corner. Good work, comrade.
Re: (Score:2)
You have no clue what you are saying. Anonymity can still absolutely define 2 people uniquely but just not tie them to a real identity. Think whistleblower talking to a reporter. They can exchange keys out of channel and CONFIRM they are the same unique people without giving up real identities. This is absolutely critical in a society and it is being taken away from us online.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to send me a message, but there is no one to tell it is from a real person not a spam bot, you dont get to send me a message. Or attach a small sum of cash, may be 10 cents for each message.
Moxie is just in the process of changing that! (Score:2)
Yes, he know it is a problem.
He's working on it, and is almost done.
That's why you now have to enter a passphrase to restore your user account.
So hold out a bit, look up the bug in their bug tracker, and contribute. Code aswell as donations help it get done quicker.
Remember: Signal's limiting factor is the availability of high quality coding work. Moxie still has to assess where to spend his limited time. If they could hire more people, we'd have this done a long time ago.
Re: (Score:2)
How about you look, all those old embarrassing feature requests were closed with a message to take it to the community forums where they are more easily ignored.
Re:Signal not anonymous (Score:4, Insightful)
Signal is still aggravating because it is impossible to have anonymous accounts. I want to be able to message someone without it being tied to anything traceable to my real person.. like my damn phone number. I don't want a relationship with signal or whisper inc. or anyone. I want both security AND anonymity if I choose to be anonymous to someone. If it can't be anonymous, then it is not TRULY private.
Sounds great in theory. But for the most part people genuinely frown on a direct messaging app having anonymous functions. Spam is enough of a problem. On the odd occasion where someone has a legitimate need for what you propose, use a burner phone, or email from anonymous accounts, or send a USB stick in an envelope.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They have always wanted to be the next WhatsApp and sell out for billions, for that they need their user's telephone numbers to form a social network interesting to advertisers.
Everything else is just excuses.
Re: (Score:2)
Get yourself a burner SIM. Pay-as-you-go. They are often free or very nearly so.
I did this a while back and used one to set up a few accounts that require a phone number, and then destroyed it. Obviously can't recover accounts via SMS any more but I'll just make new ones.
Signal not anonymous? Then get Jami! (Score:2)
The only app that associates open source, end2end encryption AND full anonymity is Jami.
Jami doesn't need your phone nor impose a relation to it (you can create an instance on your computer), and doesn't use a central server for associations.
So,
- with Signal nobody can know what you tell me, but it's still rather easy to detect you called me
- with Jami, nobody can tell who you are talking to (and of course nobody can decrypt the message too).
If you want anonymity in addition to Signal features, Jami is for
Re: (Score:2)
Signal is still aggravating because it is impossible to have anonymous accounts. I want to be able to message someone without it being tied to anything traceable to my real person.. like my damn phone number. I don't want a relationship with signal or whisper inc. or anyone. I want both security AND anonymity if I choose to be anonymous to someone. If it can't be anonymous, then it is not TRULY private.
Except? Your "phone number" isnt private. Anyone can pretty much reverse lookup people based on it, and you are a registered and paying customer of that "number" -- leasing it if you will. So, the phone company knows exactly who the hell you are.
Teslas (Score:1)
And how much data are Tesla cars hoovering up and sending to Elon?
Re: (Score:2)
And how much data are Tesla cars hoovering up and sending to Elon?
There is nothing wrong with hoovering data as long as it is informed and consensual.
'misinformation' (Score:2)
Good. (Score:3)
Problem fixed? (Score:1)
Re: Problem fixed? (Score:2)
Lol.
(Hint: Signal's makera can by definition not ever see what you are writing. Go chexk and complie the code yourself.)
Nevermind the typos. (Score:2)
Stupid touch screen phone here.
Answer 2: (Score:2)
You're gonna have to do your damn job, and make sure everyone gets a high quality education and no wealth is stolen from the people, so they don't have to fall for bullshit in the first place, dear citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
> how does Signal prevent spreading fake news?
But, but, but we can't communicate without censorship. What if someone wrongthinks or my feefee's get hurt.
Once you pass your physical prime and/or have no relevant skills you'll be recycled so you don't have to be a burden on society.
He can donate some money to Signal (Score:2)
If Elon Musk, sets up a large trust to fund service providers like news, messaging, social networking, so that they can work for users, not advertisers it will go a long way. Wish he will actually pony up some cash, like a few million dollars for immediate upgrade of infrastructure to handle the growth he is sending its way.
Re: He can donate some money to Signal (Score:2)
Frankly, I fear his demanda just as much as any advertisers'.
Just look at Teslas. Large hunks of iBling-encrusted spyware.
Like Bezos really did (Score:3)
Bezos plowed a ton of cash into the Washington Post. That seems to have really helped them out.
Then enemy of my enemy ... (Score:3)
... is my enemy I hate less.
Hello, Elon Musk! :)
Social media... the modern curse (Score:2)
I would think social media has caused more problems, violence, death, mayhem... all sorts of wrong in its short history than the total for a few centuries of earlier life.
A salesman advocating use of his own product? (Score:2)
Why, that's so unheard of!
Re: (Score:1)
Still need to keep Whatsapp (Score:2)
But I can’t delete whatsapp just yet. Many local services support it like fornexample doctor’s appointments and the like.
Re: (Score:2)
doctor’s appointments and the like
What? Did your doctor not take the oath of Hippocrates?
Signal needs to stop requiring phone numbers. (Score:2)
That is what prevents me to sign up and use it.
About time (Score:1)
How is Signal any better? (Score:1)
Hey, the sound alike (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Ditch facebook for something not the same??? (Score:1)
Signal does not appear to be a social media platform, simply a messaging app, I had no real opinion on Musk before this, but he appears to be not very good techwise if he doesn't know the difference.
fuck him (Score:2)