There's a "Signal deanonymized" thing going around:
https://gist.github.com/hackermondev/45a3cdfa52246f1d1201c1e8cdef6117
Stay calm. Deep breaths.
@rysiek while I agree with your last point and mitigations, the first point irks me, as we arrived at a re-identifiaction rate of 80% in datasets based on cell tower locations and connected users already in 2008[1]. At that time this was comparably sparse data. Later work on less sparse data achieves even better results and that’s all before the current proliferation of GPUs. It’s never just location, sets of locations are intricately linked to identities @0xfffffffe
@ll1t @0xfffffffe fair point. Just to be clear, I'd like Signal to treat this as an issue and make sure this is fixed. But this is not something to switch away from Signal over, unless one's threat model is very very specific.
@rysiek @ll1t @0xfffffffe Location data is in my opinion probably worth an "adjust settings so this is harder to hit without user interaction", as you suggested up-thread, for people with moderate risks. It has a nasty tendency to be possible to refine over time, in the hands of persistent stalkers.