this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2025
57 points (77.7% liked)
Privacy
42411 readers
550 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The US has a law that applies to any US company operating within its borders: it is illegal to tell your users that the US government has asked your company to spy on their behalf. This is called a key disclosure law, and the US's version of it, called National Security Letters, underwent an expansion with the PATRIOT act; by 2013, President Obama’s Intelligence Review Group reported issuing on average, nearly 60 NSLs every day.
Companies that don't comply with this law are forced to shut themselves down, or remain open, and grant access to user communications to the US government. The Signal foundation is a US domiciled company and must comply with this law without being able to disclose that they have been issued an NSL letter.
Comply with the government order of granting access to messages or shut down implies that we are already in that world, long ago. What makes you think that what happened to Lavavit and Silent Circle would not happen to Signal? Only wishfull thinking can make you think that, evidence tells you otherwise.
And given their scale and length of time they have been around, it is guaranteed that they have been complying for some time.
It is so ironic that we run into so much cognitive dissonance on this issue. It is so weird that people have such an emotional attachment to this product.
Signal is free and open-source. It cannot be denied that basically everything, including minor details like usernames, is end-to-end encrypted and kept secure. The Signal protocol has been proven to be secure by many independent experts and thus it is mathematically impossible for Signal to gain access to your sensitive information (except for your phone number, obviously).
A phone number alone just won't do much.
Signal is not open source, its a centralized US service, and you have no idea what their server is running. They even went a full year without publishing server code updates at one point, until it caused enough of a backlash that they started doing it again. But publishing that is no guarantee of anything, because you have no access to their server.
A phone number in most countries, including the US, means your real name and address.
Ok government here are the messages i'm legally required to provide you.
If it's so easy why Lavabit and Silent Circle had to shutdown?
Do you understand what encryption means? Genuine question.
If a company is compelled to spy on its users, it doesn't mean hack them. (although perhaps there are same edge cases where you have to wonder the exact definition of hacking)
Obviously you are missing the point. Even Gmail is private if you are going to do the job of encrypting your messages by yourself, but that's irrelevant with what we are discussing here.
What we are discussing here is that if you are a company offering a service of encrypted communications located in the US, the government has all the power to force you to shut down if you don't give them access to what they want. And that's not speculation, they're actively doint it because they are backed by the law.
Why people are so naive thinking that the government are not going to do something to get what they want when the law is on their side, when sometimes they don't hesitate to do it even when it's blatantly illegal?
The only way to avoid surveillance is with free, open source and descentralized software. If there is a company in charge of running the software that's a vulnerability and, like the cases already mentioned, those in power are going to exploit it shutting the service down if the company doesn't comply.
It doesn't matter how much you like or trust the service, there's simply no reason why they wouldn't do it again when they already dit it successfuly. Why some people who care about privacy can't see this obvious fact is beyond my understanding.
Alright I think I know what you mean, but I'm still not sure we're actually on the same page regarding encryption.
If a company is forced to do whatever ths government commands it to do, that's only valid within certain constraints.
For example, the company cannot be forced to grow wings snd fly to thr heavens. That's physically impossible.
Similarly, it also cannot provide the decrypted messages of its users because it (like Signal) does not have the KEYS that are absolutely 100% necessary for decrypting the encrypted messages of its users. So, again, it's physically impossible to hand over either the keys or the decrypted messages.
However, there is one remedy that Signal CAN do, if somehow forced. That's changing the Signal program. It certainly can push an update that sends Signal the keys for decryption.
However, at that point, the source code at github doesn't match the compiled binary of the program anymore, and very good chance people would notice, and thereby people would lose trust in Signal.
I'm not sure about the examples you gave about the government being successful in obtaining user details of a company. Were those details encrypted as well? Was the source code publically available? Was the program popular?
Just the fact that signal can, and we can assume, does share all the other data outside of the actual message content is a big deal.
You're just not going to go to the extra effort of requiring a phone number and storing that information if your business model isn't dependent on selling that information to parties who would want it. That takes a lot more effort than just giving out username/password pairs.
No there is good reason for requiring a phone number, it's to reduce spam accounts.
Of course they can sell your phone number but that's not the only good reason for requiring one.