Oh you’re definitely right about that. I’m just saying the default position, in my view, should not be to assume duress.

I’m not accusing you of a crime, just being presumptuous and puritanical.

Even crazier yet: Just because you don’t like something doesn’t make it amoral, nor does your worldview support your assumption that the OP is fucked up. They may be, but they may not, and that isn’t for you to judge or assume now is it?

Amoral? lol. Consenting adults not hurting people. How dare they?

Call Domino’s

…

What’s for dinner?

…

Sounds good. I love you.

*Confused friend faces.*

Very cool. Learned something new today. Thank you.

Is this tilt shifted? Looks unreal?

Ha. I still have an open PR on that.

Tons of great recommendations here. I didn’t see it mentioned. For somebody into biology, especially apes, Gutsick Gibbon is superb. Erika is wonderful and crazy knowledgeable on the topic of hominins among other things.

Well, his name is Derek.

Depends on what you consider a fight and how long you’re together. In the first few months? Definitely normal not to fight. After 20 years, you’ll have had a few brawls. It’s how you know resolve them that makes or breaks you.

Property ownership

Was superb too.

Yes, subpoena was poorly worded. NSL is more likely. But still it is a time-forward threat, which means there is value while the server is or was accepting sealed sender.

And I wasn’t suggesting timing attack is required to defeat sealed sender. I was, on the contrary, pointing out that was a threat even with sealed sender. Though that is non-trivial, especially with CGNAT.

So in summary. You’re right. Sealed sender is not a great solution. But it is a mitigation for the period where those messages are being accepted. A better solution is probably out there. I hope somebody implements it. In the meantime, for somebody who needs that level of metadata privacy, Signal isn’t the solution; maybe cwtch or briar.

Sure. If a state serves a subpoena to gather logs for metadata analysis, sealed sender will prevent associating senders to receivers, making this task very difficult.

On the other hand, what it doesn’t address is if the host itself is compromised where sealed sender can be disabled allowing such analysis (not posthoc though). This is also probably sensitive to strong actors with sufficient resources via a timing attack.

But still, as long as the server is accepting sealed sender messages the mitigation is useful.

Don’t mistake me for saying you’re wrong. I agree with you, mostly. But sealed sender isn’t theater, in my view. It is a best effort attempt to mitigate one potential threat. I think everybody would like that solved but actually solving it isn’t easy as I understand it. Maybe not intractable, but if you have a solution, you can implement it. That is one of the things I like about free software.

In any case, I’m only saying Signal is good for a subset of privacy concerns. Certainly not that it is the best solution in all cases.

It isn’t a meme. It is a fact of modern cryptography in many settings. For example TLS, which is a huge bulk of the traffic, guarantees again privacy not anonymity. I’m not saying one shouldn’t care about metadata privacy. Every communication one engages in requires risk benefit analysis. If your threat modeling shows that for a given message, anonymity is required, then signal, and nearly every single other protocol out there is insufficient.

That doesn’t mean TLS or lib signal, or any other cryptographic tool is not useful, especially in conjunction with other tools.

There are many cases where I want my messages to be private and the cost of entry for the message receiver to be low. Signal is great for that. But I’m not saying no other tools should be considered, just that signal is good at what it does.

You’re the one making insults and I’m smug? Care to actually dispute anything said with reason?

Cool strawmen; I didn’t say any of that. Signal protocol is awesome for privacy, not anonymity. Maybe I don’t have half a brain, but I happen to think the double ratchet implementation is an impressive piece of tech. Maybe I’m as dumb as your fever dream, but compromised exits doesn’t make tor any less of an achievement. Though i2p is also superb. I guess my brain is too weak to understand why those statements are mutually exclusive.

It isn’t. But I see this same post over and over. Really feels like there is a campaign against signal. Also tor developed by US Naval Research, so I guess it’s bad too.