Hacker News Reader

I remember when Signal was called Textsecure and did E2E encryption for SMS - just to rant about argument number 5.

They've been fundamentally dishonest in their messaging. The truth is that they don't want to support SMS any more, and they don't care about usability or barriers to entry this causes. If they'd just said that I wouldn't be so annoyed with them.

> Getting someone to sort of clock the difference in a protocol layer security property, that’s an education task that is pretty steep

This is the signal president's stated reasoning on why they couldn't have a blue-message (secure) / green-message (insecure) dynamic, akin to iMessage. I think she is being disingenuous, and that the development effort of MMS is the driving motivation, but I am cynical.

I think the people who maintained their SMS codebase left and they don't know how to maintain it properly, and it isn't cool, so they let it wither and now they want to amputate it. Which is fine really, though it highlights that you can't depend on them. I was starting to feel that already with their cryptocoin experimentation. It's a pity Signal is un-forkable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com