https://jami.net/

Offers the same privacy but is not centralised. it's peer to peer

There is a lot of FUD here. It's just like anti-vaxxers claiming vaccines make you autistic or have microchips in them: they don't understand what they're talking about, have different threat models, and are paranoid.

Messages are private on signal and they cannot be connected to you through sealed sender. There have been multiple audits and even government requests for information which have returned only the phone number and last connection time.

Anti Commercial-AI license

as I see it, Signal tried to fit that privacy gap for a standard centralised messenger, if you think about it, that might have made it easier to non-tech-savvy people to adopt it (even if it was as a request from a contact), decentralisation is not remotely appealing to them

If you want to be mainstream a) you can't have spammers, scammers, and all the other scum of the earth and b) finding your contacts in the app HAVE TO be plug and play. Literally no normie will bother adding with usernames or whatever.

It's focused on ensuring there is no middleman between you and the other party, but it does not have a goal to provide anonymous messaging. Sadly.

Jami.net

Ignore the comment saying signal is "end to end encrypted" "private" etc They are simply stuck in a delusional state where they try to convince themselves that signal is the best option so they can continue using it. Nothing is private if it isn't fully libre because you never know what the proprietary code is doing. The signal protocol itself has its source code released, and the encryption and security code is publicly available, but the signal Foundation has stated that it uses both free code and proprietary code. Their reason is UI, but it's hard to make sure whatever proprietary code is being used for because you simply can't see it. As GNU puts it: "You're walking in a pitch black cave". Jami is fully libre and is a GNU project. You don't even need any phone number!

Signal is not perfect but we control its app, libre software. See SimpleX Chat.

Escaping WhatsApp and Discord, anti-libre software, is more important.

in the end of the day, the end user needs an id. this is perfect for the everyday user, but obviously if you are writing anti regime articles, you might want to look around for more anonim apps.

Because their founder (Marlinspike) is probably under a National Security Letter, maybe it's just that, maybe he's done some crimes they're also holding over him. If you look at his behavior it's that of someone very paranoid that they're going to be found out to be cooperating with the feds and get hit with charges for not upholding the bargain, someone straddling one or two big lies that have to be maintained to keep their life going. Very controlling of things they should be open about if they care about privacy as they claim. But exactly the behavior of someone under an NSL who's terrified of getting hit with charges for that and maybe other things but who is expected to front and run a purported privacy first messenger. The secrecy, the refusal to allow others to operate their own servers, the antagonism towards federation, the long periods without publishing source code updates.

This doesn't necessarily mean that signal message content is compromised, the NSA primarily scrapes metadata and would most care about knowing who is talking to who and to put real names to those people and building graphs of networks of people. Other things like what times they talk can be inferred from upstream taps on signals servers without their knowledge or cooperation via traffic observation and correlation especially when paired with the fourteen eyes global intercept network. With a phone number it's also a lot easier to pinpoint an exact device to hack using a cooperating (or hacked) telecom. Phone numbers can also be correlated to triangulated positions of devices, see who in a leftist protest network was A) heavily sending messages and B) attended that protest and left last and begin to infer things about structure and particular relationships.

And those saying it has to do with spam prevention, that's kind of nonsense. First I still get the occasional spam, second a phone number that can receive a confirmation text is something all these criminal organizations have access to which the average person doesn't. Third it's possible to prevent spam just by looking for people (especially new accounts under 120 days old) sending very small amounts of messages (1-3) to a very large amount of other users especially in a short amount of time. Third there's no reason to keep the phone number tied to the account, a confirmation text could be required with a promise to delete the phone number immediately after (would still be technically useful to the NSA though less useful for keeping track of people changing numbers or using a burner for this who might be higher value targets).

Session is an alternative that does not require, or request, your phone number (or any other identifying information). Honestly, I have no idea why Signal got popular and Sessions did not. As soon as Signal asked for my phone number that set off alarm bells for me and I’ve never really trusted it since.

thousands of threads on this topic since decades ago.

it's an eternal debate (since signal has no plans to change)

just read the history and join the rest of us waiting for them to change. using signal before that change is completely optional. go ahead and don't use it. no problem.

opening the discussion again is just tiring.

I think you can use a pay phone to sign up.

Maybe I am being too simplistic here. But I have never received a spam message to my XMPP account and I don't know how a spammer would find it.

In a phone-based system a spammer can spam a list of numbers, or use contact lists that are easily shared via phone permissions. There are several low-effort discovery processes.

For e-mail, you get spam when you you input your personal e-mail into forms, websites, or post it publicly.

But for something like XMPP... It seems rather difficult to discover accounts effectively to spam them. And, if it is an actual problem, why not implement some kind of 'identity swap' that automatically transmits a new identity to approved contacts? A chat username does not need to be as static as an e-mail or a phone number for most people.

I just don't see 'spam' as such a difficult challenge in this context, and not enough in my view to balance out requesting a phone number. Perhaps a spammer can chip-in?

My conspiracy theory brain goes:

Its funded by the government.

Yes, the messages themselves are encrypted, but they don't need that, they have access to all the useful metadata.

They can find everyone near the site of a protest (via cell tower data), then find their signal accounts, then see who they are contacting, potentially revealing who the the other protestors and protest organizers are.

And if you need access to the messages, they don't need to crack the encryption, they could just send pegasus to your phone (and they already have you phone number to do so), and they'll have access to every message.

Then they just find those other protestors, also send pegasus to their phones.

I mean, the Signal code is technically legit, they just used a side channel (zero day exploits) to gain access.

But this is just a theory, I don't have any evidence supporting this hypothesis.