I remember a time when visiting a website that opens a javacript dialog box asking for your name so the message “hi <name entered>” could be displayed was baulked at.
Why does signal want a phone number to register? Is there a better alternative?
To prevent spam and to allow people who already know each other’s number to easily contact over signal. If you want an anonymous account use an online sms activation service paid with monero, personally I recommend smspool.net .
I think it’s important to remember de difference between being private and being anonymous. Signal IS private. It’s not anonymous. The same is true for many other apps/services.
Personally I like to be private. I don’t really need to be anonymous.
ignore the comment saying signal is “end to end encrypted” “private” etc
You can easily verify the keys of the person you’re speaking with, and they’re generated locally… so technically speaking, even if their servers are leaking, your messages are still unreadable, but yea that’s not ideal
Not when it’s backdoored. So, tell the guy above there’s a fully libre copy.
? Even if the servers are backdoored, your messages are still encrypted by your key - as long as the server didn’t manipulate the keys at the first exchange, which you can check by verifying the security code
If it matches, then it’s okay. Such features exist in all encrypted messenger apps
The app, not the server.
Molly.im is a Signal Client fork with Security enhancements and the possibility to install a version with only free software.
Great, but it relies on signal’s servers, so it’s centralised. Also, Moly merely removes proprietary parts from Signal, but that’s a workaround (same thing for linux-libre kernel, it’s free software, but just a workaround which is why I’m looking to help with HyprbolaBSD). I’m not coming here to say Molly isn’t an improvement, but being centralised and relying on a non-tully-free program’s servers is a huge red flag for me :)
It doesn’t matter whether a server claims to run free software or not. You can’t verify what it’s running. That’s why E2EE is designed entirely around the client. You can’t trust the server no matter what.
Did anyone say that was the problem? It will not matter how encrypted your messages are when the centralised service gets easily banned.
Yeah the comment I responded to did
Directly above, doesn’t look like it.
Jami, as much as I prefer it on various philosophical grounds, simply doesn’t work very well at the moment. :(
And we should report problems and fix them ourselves to make it better
Based
Yeah I’m on their Discourse forum, but the situation isn’t that great, and it’s unclear to me if the problems are fixable. Particularly when there are incompatibilities between version X and version Y, where both versions are already in the wild. You can’t travel backwards in time to fix those versions, and this (like email clients or telephones) is an application area where you can’t tell people to update their clients all the time. You have to keep things interoperable.
It’s also often inconvenient to reproduce bugs like that in order to diagnose them. If you try to talk to someone over Jami and it doesn’t work, you generally can’t borrow their phone to analyze the issue. If you’re one of the core developers, maybe you have access to a room full of different kinds of phones and OS versions to test with, but a typical user/contributor won’t have anything like that.
Yeah, this is just the reality of unpaid free software developers, they don’t have the recourses to work on every single bug as quick as a paid developer, but that doesn’t justify not reporting bugs and working with the developers to fix them. Like you said, Jami is grest ethically so why not make it great function? Also, don’t you have a computer and a phone? Test on those. I don’t own a phone, so I can’t test the phone, but I do gladly test on my laptop.
You should have visited Signal’s github page first, I dunno. Before talking. Made up a lot of stuff.
They do have proprietary code for that crypto wallet they have there, well hidden, and for, eh, phone number registration, but other than that module it’s all released, I think.
The server and the client applications are FOSS. You can host it for yourself, patching out the domain names and registration parts the way you like it more.
That’s not the full picture. That’s exactly the problem I was highlighting. The issue isn’t whether some of the code is “FOSS”, it’s about whether all of it is. If even small parts remain proprietary (as you mentioned), then we can’t verify what those parts are doing. And those parts could theoretically significantly affect the data collection. Also, I didn’t make up a lot of stuff. The Signal Foundation themselves have confirmed that certain UI and build components are not fully libre. As the GNU project puts it, if part of your system is closed, then you’re trusting a black box, no matter how well-lit the rest of it is.
Signal protocol guarantees that what’s on the server we can discard in your suspicions, it doesn’t matter, because you are not trusting it.
The client is fully open.
You are trusting the server, or do you verify the fingerprint of EVERY contact of yours? The normal people don’t, as Signals UI purpusfully doesn’t encourages it.
If it’s not fully free, I don’t trust it. I don’t understand how someone in a privacy community doesn’t understand how much a few lines of code can track someone so easily no matter how much of the program is free software.
I didn’t actually know the server code was published. It’d be cool if the client allowed multiple servers so you could talk to people on the “normal” master while also thing a private instance
I think choosing a server, like in some ICQ clients, is not a complex modification.
They had it implemented but discarded it out of stupid centralization ideology. Moxie said it on a Chaos communication Congress presentation he held but which he didn’t wanted to be recorded, as the stuff he said was stupid and wrong.
as I see it, Signal tried to fit that privacy gap for a standard centralised messenger, if you think about it, that might have made it easier to non-tech-savvy people to adopt it (even if it was as a request from a contact), decentralisation is not remotely appealing to them
So, you’re going to get two schools of thought on this, and one of them is wrong. Horrendously wrong. For perspective, I was a certified CEHv7, so take that for what its worth.
There’s a saying in security circles “security through obscurity isn’t security,” which is a saying from the 1850s and people continually attempt to apply the logic to today’s standards and it’s–frankly stupid–but just plain silly. It generally means that if you hide the key to your house under the floor mat, there’s no point to having the lock, because it doesn’t lend you any real security and that if you release the schematics to security protocols and/or devices (like locks), it makes them less secure. And in this specific context, it makes sense and is an accurate statement. Lots of people will make the argument that F/OSS is more secure because it’s openly available and many will make the argument that it’s less secure. But each argument is moot because it deals with software development and not your private data. lol.
When you apply the same logic to technology and private data it breaks down tremendously. This is the information age. With a persons phone number I can very likely find their home address or their general location. Registered cell phones will forever carry with them the city in which they were activated. So if I have your phone number, and know your name is John Smith, I can look up your number and see where it was activated. It’ll tell me “Dallas, Texas” and now I’m not just looking for John Smith, I’m looking for John Smith in Dallas, Texas. With successive breakdowns like this I will eventually find your home address.
The supposition made by Signal (and anyone who defends this model) is that generally anyone with your private number is supposed to have it and even if they do, there’s not much they can do with it. But that’s so incredibly wrong it’s not even funny in 2025.
I’ve seen a great number of people in this thread post things like “privacy isn’t anonymity and anonymity isn’t security,” which frankly I find gobstopping hilarious from a community that will break their neck to suggest everyone run VPNs to protect their online identity as a way to protect yourself from fingerprinting and ad tracking.
It frankly amazes me. Protecting your data, including your phone number is the same as protecting your home address and your private data through the redirection from a VPN. I don’t think many in this community would argue against using a VPN. But why they feel you should shotgun your phone number all over the internet is fucking stupid, IMO, or that you should only use a secure messaging protocol to speak to people you know, and not people you don’t know. It’s all just so…stupid.
They’ll then continue to say that you should only use Signal to talk to people you know because “that’s what its for!” as if protecting yourself via encryption from compete fucking strangers has no value all of a sudden. lol
You have to be very careful in this community because there are a significant number of armchair experts which simply parrot the things that they’ve read from others ad-nauseam without actually thinking about the basis of what they’re saying.
I’m ready for your downvote.
The only thing I’ll tack onto this is that with the introduction of Signal usernames, you still have to give Signal your number to verify that at least on some level, you probably are a real person. As someone with 5 different phone numbers, probably doesn’t stop spam as much as they’d hoped, but more than they feared, but at least now you don’t have to give that Craigslist guy who uses Signal your phone number, just your username. Is that the best method? I dunno, but but it is something.
I was unaware of this change, and it’s perfectly acceptable. No one has any ground to lambast Signal for requiring phone numbers to get an account. I think that’s a perfectly reasonable spam mitigation technique. The issue is having to shotgun your phone number to every Howard and Susan that you want to use Signal to communicate with.
This was honestly the only thing holding me back from actually using Signal. I’ll likely register for an account now.
If you are even remotely involved in any activist type of things, you certainly don’t want this US government honeypot have your phone-number and device id.
At least in theory, this is mitigated. The signal activation server sees your phone number, yes. If you use Signal, the threat model doesn’t protect you from someone with privileged network or server access learning that you use Signal (just like someone with privileged network access can learn you use tor, or a vpn, etc).
But the signal servers do not get to see the content of your group messages, nor the metadata about your groups and contacts. Sealed sender keeps that private: https://signal.org/blog/sealed-sender/
You would obviously want to join those groups with a user Id rather than your phone number, or a malicious member could out you. It’s not the best truly anonymous chat platform, but protection from your specific threat model is thought through.
edit: be sure to go to Settings > Privacy > Phone Number. By default anyone who already has your phone number can see you use signal (used for contact discovery, this makes sense to me for all typical uses of Signal), and in a separate setting, contacts and groups can see your phone number. You will absolutely want to un-check that one if you follow my suggestion above.
There are some mitigations in place, yes, but Sealed Sender on a centralized platform is snake-oil as someone with server access can easily do a timing attack and discover who communicated with whom.
That a timing attack could be successful is not a given. It’s a possibility, yes, but there is very likely sufficient mixing happening to make that unrealistic or unreliable. An individual doesn’t create much traffic, and thousands are using the server constantly. Calling it a honeypot or claiming the phone number and device is are available is a stretch.
Timing attacks can work in tor when you are lucky enough to own both the entrance and exit node for an individual because very few people will be using both, and web traffic from an individual is relatively heavy and constant to allow for correlation.
A timing attack is extremely realistic when you control one of the end devices which is a common scenario if a person gets arrested or their device compromised. This way you can then identify who the contacts are and with the phone number you can easily get the real name and movement patterns.
This is like the ideal setup for law inforcement, and it is well documented that honeypot “encrypted” messengers have been set up for similar purposes before. Signal was probably not explicitly set up for that, but the FBI for sure has an internal informant that could run those timing attacts.
Spam accounts are clearly the biggest factor for not letting anyone just sign up with an email. Although getting a new email without a phone verification is getting increasingly hard now.
SimpleX is coming nicely along. Should be good to switch next year once they got their desktop apps polished up
Simplex has a bad user experience and needs a lot of work before it’s ready for normies.
Last time I tried Simplex, the battery drain was unbelievable. Maybe I’ll give it another go and see what happens, but I’m not optimistic.
in the end of the day, the end user needs an id. this is perfect for the everyday user, but obviously if you are writing anti regime articles, you might want to look around for more anonim apps.
We have to assume we are all writing anti regime articles … In the future
perfect for the everyday user
…because of course, they don’t need privacy, do they now. “Nothing to hide” and all that jazz.
SimpleX
I hope it gets multi device support and sync one day, in a way that just works
You can just make a group for each contact with all of your (and their) devices in it.
It’s still a shitty workaround
If people contact me, I can’t expect them to create a group…
You can configure one or more of your profiles’ addresses to be a “business address” which means that when people contact you via it it will always create a new group automatically. Then you can (optionally, on a per-contact basis) add your other devices’ profiles to it (as can your contact with their other devices, after you make them an admin of the group).
It’s not the most obvious/intuitive system but it works well and imo this paradigm is actually better than most systems’ multi-device support in that you can see which device someone is sending from and you can choose to give different contacts access to a different subset of your devices than others.
Indeed, didn’t know that.
I prefer having the possibility of having multiple devices under the same profile 🤷
And it uses same tech as Signal.
However getting friends to join Simplex is complicated by two annoyances:
(1) It gets confused by an invite URL coming from facebook (it doesn’t know to strip the appended Facebook tracking code - as trivial as it is).
(2) When the invite is via a QR code you must scan it with SimpleX not your native camera app. Invitees just give up.
Isn’t the QR Code a link you could also open in a web browser?
Spam prevention
And discovery.
It’s not an argument. Think about regular mobile numbers, are they preventing spams? No.
What kind of spam are you talking about
Scams, girls wanting to chat with you, incredible money opportunities…
Are you seeing spam on signal? Do you even know why spam is possible on phone networks and what the difference is between phone networks and the internet?
I don’t know what is spam for you, but when you get three message requests from three girls respectively named Tania, Clara and Ella that are contacting you about you carrier or your management skills, I call it spam.
The way that Signal integrates phone number is odd because it opens up the spam door. O understand why Signal use phone numbers this way (to make “normies” adopt Signal more easily like WhatsApp would do) but it not the best to kind of contaminate the network with the traditional cell network
Because Signal has a low user base. Why Spam on Signal, if you can reach everyone with an SMS?
The point, I believe, wasn’t about spam but likely got derailed. It was probably about the phone number requirement being unnecessary. I’ll just add that even if it is, it’s a measure geared towards common users that often need to recover access to their accounts through means they’re already familiar with, as is a verification SMS. It’s not the safest nor the most private, but it’s easier to deal with for most people. Whoever wants something that doesn’t depend on a SIM or eSIM should try Briar and SimpleX. None of these will be a perfect solution for every single person though.
Session is an alternative that does not require, or request, your phone number (or any other identifying information). Honestly, I have no idea why Signal got popular and Sessions did not. As soon as Signal asked for my phone number that set off alarm bells for me and I’ve never really trusted it since.
According to privacyguides.org, Session is listed under this message:
These messengers do not have forward secrecy, and while they fulfill certain needs that our previous recommendations may not, we do not recommend them for long-term or sensitive communications. Any key compromise among message recipients would affect the confidentiality of all past communications.
Link: https://www.privacyguides.org/en/real-time-communication/#additional-options
This is incredibly important. Signal is considered the “gold standard” of encrypted and private communication for a reason.
Thanks for this link but your username also makes this pretty sus. 😜
This is a privacy community lol, I think you know why people use throwaways.
privacyguides.org have been a reputable source of information, also you aren’t suppose to just click hyperlinks without hovering over it and verifying that it is a trustwothy link anyways.
Isn’t Session the one with insane username strings?
Session is the one with broken security.
I don’t know that their security is “broken”. It may be, I don’t know. But also without anything that connects you to any particular message, it seems that – in itself – is a pretty good form of security.
I just don’t get why people accept Signal’s justification for requiring a phone number. They absolutely don’t need to (session proves that). It is certainly possible for them to say, “If you register without a phone number and access to your phone book then you will lose automatic discoverability by other users of Signal — meaning that you need to find another (physical) way to exchange your Signal username with your contacts”. They CAN do this. I think many users, like myself, would be fine with this tradeoff for greater anonymity. For some reason, they have steadfastly refused. The reasoning behind this refusal is what bothers me.
Yes. That was how they avoided using identifying information from their users.
So the reason Session never took off is probably because exchanging contact information is a big hassle, effectively barring users looking for convenience?
Is it possible to use a voip based SMS for registration?
Those are a little easier to get anonymously then physical sim cards.
Too many steps.
Despite this, escaping WhatsApp and Discord, anti-libre software, is more important.
thousands of threads on this topic since decades ago.
it’s an eternal debate (since signal has no plans to change)
just read the history and join the rest of us waiting for them to change. using signal before that change is completely optional. go ahead and don’t use it. no problem.
opening the discussion again is just tiring.
opening the discussion again is just tiring.
so tiring that i opened it and read it, then typed a long response.
Fuck haterz, these are valid questions and there no answers.
Signal did its job. I am waiting for simplex to mature.
read the history
Is there a url for the history? Or for a good answer about the phone numbers? If the topic keeps recurring and the answers don’t satisfy people, that suggests that there is no good answer, and that there are possibly misaligned interests between Signal and its users.
don’t be like one of the now!now!now! types (i.e. OP) and treat every new discovery (personal first encounters with existing tech, situations) as the final nail in the coffin. there are other messengers available while waiting for signal to change.
just saying, acknowledge that many others have arrived at the same problem years before you and they are not your enemy. so yelling at the choir is counter productive.
Signal is not perfect but we control its app, libre software. See SimpleX Chat.
First, we must defeat WhatsApp and Discord.
Why we need to defeat those first? We can go straight to SimpleX?
Do not let this derail us. Escaping to libre software is the best return on investment.
You can go to Simplex (for sure a lot of people here already done it) but if only privacy nerds get to this place this is not a great solution. We (I’m talking about us using Lemmy and chatting on SimpleX) must convince people, starting by friends and family to stop using these fucking socials then at this point SimpleX will be considered as a viable alternative
Because the entire point of using communication programs is to communicate with people other than yourself.
What SimpleX, Signal, or any app like this need first and foremost is traction, as new users generate more new users. One of Signal’s goals is usability (usually achieved by being simple, as in no complexity for the end user). In my opinion SimpleX lacks that. This is the same reason Signal needs a phone number: populating your contact list with users already on the platform
reason Signal needs a phone number: populating your contact list
Wrong, it is not optional.
First, we must defeat WhatsApp and Discord.
Do whatever works. Do not get derailed. Escaping WhatsApp and Discord, anti-libre software, has the highest return on investment.
-
Yes, and in that time you would visit a website with your own IP address likely, likely over HTTP without SSL/TLS, likely with your vulnerable browser fingerprint. Point?
-
Privacy, not anonymity. Two completely different things.
-
Because the way Signal is built hosting it requires a lot of resources (storage especially), so they want spam prevention and fewer accounts per person.
-
I haven’t seen a non-TLS website in years.
-
Your asserting “two completely different things” doesn’t make it true. Privacy and anonymity are not synonyms but they are overlapping areas. Also ISTM you are redefining terms to suit your purposes. Anonymity to me means the message recipient can’t tell who you are. If a THIRD PARTY (the server operator) can ALSO tell who you are, that’s a privacy failure, not just an anonymity one.
-
Why does it take so much storage per user? Does it have video uploads or anything like that? A user account should basically just be a row in a database.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software) :
In August 2022, Signal notified 1900 users that their data had been affected by the Twilio breach including user phone numbers and SMS verification codes.[105] At least one journalist had his account re-registered to a device he did not control as a result of the attack.[106] …
This mandatory connection to a telephone number (a feature Signal shares with WhatsApp, KakaoTalk, and others) has been criticized as a “major issue” for privacy-conscious users who are not comfortable with giving out their private number.[142] A workaround is to use a secondary phone number.[142] The ability to choose a public, changeable username instead of sharing one’s phone number was a widely-requested feature.[142][144][145] This feature was added to the beta version of Signal in February 2024.[146]
Using phone numbers as identifiers may also create security risks that arise from the possibility of an attacker taking over a phone number.[142] A similar vulnerability was used to attack at least one user in August 2022, though the attack was performed via the provider of Signal’s SMS services, not any user’s provider.[105] The threat of this attack can be mitigated by enabling Signal’s Registration Lock feature, a form of two-factor authentication that requires the user to enter a PIN to register the phone number on a new device.[147]
- When people would complain about JS on webpages, they were not.
- Completely different things overlap all the time.
- Because your status updates and messages are encrypted and stored (until retrieved, of course) once for every recipient, and that includes your other devices and their other devices.
Because your status updates and messages are encrypted and stored (until retrieved, of course) once for every recipient, and that includes your other devices and their other devices.
I’d like to see a numerical estimate of how much data this is. But, it sounds to me like more reason to want to self-host.
I don’t see any point to rehashing the other stuff. Non-TLS websites mostly went away once DNS spoofing at wifi hotspots became widespread.
But, it sounds to me like more reason to want to self-host.
So do that. You can do that with Signal.
I don’t see any point to rehashing the other stuff. Non-TLS websites mostly went away once DNS spoofing at wifi hotspots became widespread.
Maybe I wasn’t clear, someone said that back in the day registration on a website was a new and bad thing, connecting it with privacy and comparing to Signal asking for phone number. I answered with the idea that not much commonly thought from that time about privacy has aged well. You wouldn’t register on websites, but you would communicate with them over plaintext. I hope that makes it clearer.
They are overlapping areas, but they are “two completely different things”. They overlap by sharing common goals, not by being interchangeable.
Anonymity to me means the message recipient can’t tell who you are.
Right. And Signal doesn’t provide that at all, it ties your private messages to your identity (phone number), it explicitly does not provide anonymity. In fact, it proudly advertises you as a signal user to other signal users that have your number saved. It allows you to post public status updates, it encourages you to save your first and last name on your account.
If a THIRD PARTY (the server operator) can ALSO tell who you are, that’s a privacy failure, not just an anonymity one.
Okay? And? In this hypothetical world where Signal offered anonymity but still tied you to your number for other practical reasons, then you’re be correct that it would be a privacy concern.
But they don’t offer anonymity, they offer private conversations.
They are overlapping areas, but they are “two completely different things”. They overlap by sharing common goals, not by being interchangeable.
They aren’t interchangeable but they intersect. Completely different means they are disjoint.
it proudly advertises you as a signal user to other signal users
That sounds terrible, a private message service shouldn’t advertise anything to anyone. If I subscribe to a subversive magazine, it shouldn’t advertise me to other subscribers. It’s a terrible invasion if they do. Signal and PGP are both comparable to subversive magazines in that regard, even if the PGP manual tried to say the opposite.
I think most of us these days recognize that the whole concept of public key directories and signature chains on PGP keys was a conceptual error in how people thought about privacy back then (they only cared about encrypting message content). We like to think we know better now, but maybe we don’t.
Okay? And? In this hypothetical world where Signal offered anonymity but still tied you to your number for other practical reasons, then you’re be correct that it would be a privacy concern.
According to Wikipedia, they do record some of that info and report it to the government when required. In fact there is further disclosure to them (they might not retain or use the info, but they do receive it) every time you connect to the Signal server.
Anyway the Wikipedia article indicates they have introduced usernames as an alternative to phone numbers, so they have finally acknowledged the problem and done something about it.
It’s okay to be wrong.
-
Our phone numbers are not private from them.
Despite this, escaping WhatsApp and Discord, anti-libre software, is more important.
- yawn, vpns are a thing and strawman argument. point?
- my number is private. point?
- bs. spam is easy to detect across a large number of accounts using simpleheuristics. point?
- they were talking of something like year 2003, when they were commonly not.
- no, PSTN is not private.
- for something end-to-end encrypted, including message metadata (not connection metadata), this statement seems amazingly stupid ; “simple heuristics” are usually used on something like plaintext e-mail.
- no they weren’t. no moving of goalposts
- what’s my number then?
- amazingly not stupid. dunning kruger and all that.
- People were complaining about JS existing when SSL and TLS were not omniscious. If we disagree on that fact, move on.
- A sequence of digits.
- OK, what are your “simple heuristics” for a bunch of pieces of ciphertext with unknown sender (except for IP addresses) in your storage to pick spammers from that?
-
I assume ease of use and spam prevention.
I think Signal tries to be at least somewhat attractive to the average person who wants more privacy than just using WhatsApp or whatever. Making it easy to message existing contacts helps a lot with adoption.
