-that you cannot be open source if you do not instantly share every change
-that the nsa funded signal
-that you can bribe the New Yorker magazine to write a profile about you
-that Facebook Messenger is as secure as Signal
I don’t trust dijit.
I run an IRC network (and have for 15 years), and I tell people often to use OTR in DMS primarily because I shouldn't be trusted. I definitely do not tell people to install my client and forsake all other networks.
> -that you can bribe the New Yorker magazine to write a profile about you
Oh that's definitely true; though I wasn't saying bribe; Did you know those "30 under 30" lists, you have to apply to be on those. It helps if you're rich, but you don't technically have to pay. It's like this with a lot of media.
I have been in the room when discussing paying for PR pieces on our senior staff, especially the CEO in top magazines. Truthfully you hire a PR agency and "things happen".
> -that Facebook Messenger is as secure as Signal
Why are they not?
> -that you cannot be open source if you do not instantly share every change
You are not, since nobody can bloody run the software themselves anyway, and the entire point is transparency.
I mean, you wrote, "From everything I personally know about the media, articles like that are usually paid for, though almost never directly by the person being profiled."
This is, frankly, a stupid claim, though I think from your profile you are probably German or Austrian and thus might not really know which news outlets are reliable. As a perhaps helpful analogy, the New Yorker is roughly like Der Spiegel or Die Zeit, only more respected. (That's not to say they don't have misses; Ken Auletta's profile of Elizabeth Holmes comes to mind.)
The prospect that you can pay for coverage--and as an aside, I don't think The New Yorker has ever run "30 under 30" lists--is rather laughable.
> You are not, since nobody can bloody run the software themselves anyway, and the entire point is transparency.
Er, what are you talking about? https://signal.org/blog/reproducible-android/
I don't know how to say this nicely, but your post doesn't have a strong connection to facts.
the 30-under-30 thing is Forbes, I have always considered them reputable, perhaps I am mistaken.
The reproducible builds website; is; as previously mentioned a really nice looking page which basically says: It won't be reproducible even if you follow these steps.
I literally said: "it looks good in a google search, but there is nothing of substance since they say in the article itself that it will not be reproducible", that "please don't send us messages about how it's not reproducible"; they say it's because of the shared libraries and that some parts are actually reproducible.
No, Forbes is a shithole. https://www.entrepreneur.com/growing-a-business/did-someone-...
The New Yorker is not a shithole, and don't take money for articles.
Maybe you want to, like, correct your blog post? Honestly, the claim makes you sound dumb.
> The reproducible builds website; is; as previously mentioned a really nice looking page which basically says: It won't be reproducible even if you follow these steps.
I don't know what you mean. Are you referring to the NDK portions? And if so, does the critical stuff (key verification, encryption) happen in Java or in native code?
> "please don't send us messages about how it's not reproducible"
Huh? Where did they say that?
Even if I take, for absolute fact that you cannot possibly hire a PR firm or spend enough in marketing to get a puff piece about you in a magazine; you are glossing over the entire point I am making.
Someone is telling me to like this guy. Someone is telling me that he's a saint, a hero, a steward of the future. Someone truly want's me to think that.
I'll say it again because you didn't catch it: none of these issues are nails in a coffin, when placed together they paint a particular picture. I can't unsee that picture, and arguing over semantics doesn't change the core argument at all.
I absolutely will not redact that statement because it is true that you can buy your way into magazines, either directly or indirectly. Whether the New Yorker is entirely immune to being convinced to write profiles like this: even if no money directly changes hands, is irrelevant.
-----
> the Signal Android codebase includes some native shared libraries that we employ for voice calls (WebRTC, etc). At the time this native code was added, there was no Gradle NDK support yet, so the shared libraries aren’t compiled with the project build.
> Getting the Gradle NDK support set up and making its output reproducible will likely be more difficult.
> Please don’t freak out
> Just to head off the inevitable deluge of GPG-encrypted emails with dramatic subject lines, we are not doing this in response to any kind of legal threat or pressure. This is just a weekend hack; please don’t make us regret it.
tl;dr: it's not reproducible with shared libraries, or gradle and it was just a hack, please don't make them regret doing it.
Oh, and did you actually run through the steps? Or is it merely enough that having them listed makes you trust them?
By all means, you're not the first person to proudly wave their ignorance on the Internet, nor will you be the last, and yours isn't especially egregious by Internet standards. I am baffled that you would want to write a blog post about how ignorant you are and then submit it to the front page of HN. If I were you, I'd, like, not want people to read that?
But, up to you. Good thing you don't use your real name I guess. ;)
> > Just to head off the inevitable deluge of GPG-encrypted emails with dramatic subject lines, we are not doing this in response to any kind of legal threat or pressure. This is just a weekend hack; please don’t make us regret it.
This doesn't say what you said it says.
> tl;dr: it's not reproducible with shared libraries, or gradle and it was just a hack, please don't make them regret doing it.
As I said, in which codebase does the key verification and encryption live--is it in the native code, or in the Java code? I suspect you don't know, or you don't know why that matters.
> Oh, and did you actually run through the steps? Or is it merely enough that having them listed makes you trust them?
Oh, definitely the latter.
Well, I am ignorant, I don't know the internal workings of every single magazine, but I am aware how the media engine is working since I also work in the entertainment industry.
I am sure you are not genuinely claiming that it's impossible for them to be influenced by PR firms or external marketing spend? That you sincerely believe they are never influenced by external marketing of people? How might you suppose they find people to write profiles on? I personally know that it isn't chance.
> Good thing you don't use your real name I guess. ;)
I do use my real name for whatever it's worth, I have absolutely no problem wearing these statements on my sleeve- if you read the article you would see my real name plastered at the top of the page and a link to my video game credits buried near the bottom of the page in the "Commonly Asked Questions" section.
I'm really happy you took the the time to respond to me though, since you are precisely the type of person I'm writing this for; people who are emotionally pro-signal, when in reality there's no reason to be.
Do you even read how aggressive your tone is? If you actually had anything meaningful to say I would feel terrible.
"PR people pitch profiles to writers" is very different from...oh, what did you write? "From everything I personally know about the media, articles like that are usually paid for..."
The former is normal journalism. The latter is an ethical breach. So, yes, let's talk about tone for a moment: in your post, you accused multiple people of ethical or legal breaches, on the basis of, oh...your feelings?
Very respectful of you! Yes, my "tone" is direct. But I didn't accuse you of anything unethical, did I?
> I do use my real name for whatever it's worth, I have absolutely no problem wearing these statements on my sleeve
Hahah, OK then.
> I'm really happy you took the the time to respond to me though
Oh, but I did. As far as I can tell, you made one, and only one, technical claim: that Signal's reproducible builds aren't useful because they don't cover the NDK code. I asked you, twice now,
"As I said, in which codebase does the key verification and encryption live--is it in the native code, or in the Java code? I suspect you don't know, or you don't know why that matters."
You have twice now failed to reply to that. Care to try for a third time?
Edit: Seems like Signal's reproducible builds now do cover native code, though I haven't tried this myself: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/blob/main/reprod....
So, like...what was your point again? Other than that you don't know what you're talking about?
Do you think it irrelevant that your phone auto-updates without consent (citation in TFA), do you think it irrelevant that the reproducible builds are -- not, you wouldn't ever need to touch the key to bypass signal. You want me to go into semantics but anyone with half a technical brain knows that RCE, logging, remote screen capture, or anything that can read memory will easily break security and doesn't have to be colocated with the code that actually does the encryption/decryption.
Also I made multiple technical claims:
* "third party clients are a no go"
* "third party networks are a no go"
* "Automatic updates are enabled and forced" (due to "move fast" ;))
* "The code on the server has been provably non-public"
* "Forces the use of a globally unique number that can often be tied to personal identity and will always be tied to physical location"
Care to answer these? ;)
EDIT: seems like Signal has a spotty relationship with reproducible builds but they are trying to keep it and even have an automated job for it, though it seems people are often unable to reproduce: https://community.signalusers.org/t/beta-feedback-for-the-up...
Good luck with that.
The New Yorker is a storied magazine that has never had anything like that. Forbes runs those lists, I believe.
I am not particularly a fan of the New Yorker any longer, and some media ignorance is forgivable. But to make a libelous sloppy claim on this basis is the height of hypocrisy and recklessness.
Do you notice how people have to waste time repeatedly rebutting your pig ignorant claims? I am a free speech advocate but your behavior is the reason libel laws exist.