> what he thinks Signal is now
I suspect it would be some approximation of “no longer his”. I can understand your frustration but this kind of message is likely only to exacerbate his.
I suspect it would be some approximation of “no longer his”. I can understand your frustration but this kind of message is likely only to exacerbate his.
I am requesting a statement from someone that has been very outspoken on many issues around secure, safe, private communication in the past and is in a better position than any of us to follow up on his advocacy.
He has had a very strong effect on the ecosystem including explicitly denigrating non-centralized efforts like the Matrix ecosystem (to the detriment of these non-US controlled systems supported by the French and Germans who had reason to be cautious in the wake of the Snowden revelations).
As someone who has had a significant impact in this area he owes us. Otherwise we can all draw our own conclusions.
I wouldn't go so far as to call Signal compromised - yet - but I will be keeping an eye out for increased mentions of Signal in DOJ indictment documents, just like I did for Dropbox after Condy Rice joined their board (after which there was indeed an increase in such mentions of Dropbox).