Administered by:
@stux@mstdn.socialBtw, like what @signalapp also said
Don't think any less of #Signal with the leaked messages from the US gov
It was leaked because they are so incompetent that they added a journalist to the conversation
Not because Signal is unsecure!
For us civilians, Signal is one of the better options
For the military it should't be an option, why else spend hundreds of billions on your military?
@stux
Whoever thinks the mess is @signalapp fault, deserves to have journalist added to their group chats.
Insecurity is just a screenshot away.
@stux @signalapp Belgian VRT1 published and article doubting the security of Signal in favour of Threema. The quoted professor made a mess and got quite some stuff wrong: Signal not having PFC for one. 
@stux @signalapp well, actually.
I don't think there's anything *wrong* with Signal here, but there is an opportunity for safer affordances.
Both Gmail and Outlook give a warning message if you address someone outside your organization in an email. Outlook also gives a warning if you try to send mail to someone you haven't contacted in a while.
I think it's possible to include similar affordances in Signal when making a group.
For example:
- you've never messaged this person on Signal
- you haven't messaged this person in a long time
- you have never put this person in a group chat before
- you have never put A in a group with B and C before
Anyway, it's an interesting UX question.
@evan @stux @signalapp As a Signal user this sounds really annoying. I also admin several chats for organizing purposes. I can’t imagine myself or any of my comrades ever being so incompetent
Signal does warn you if someone sends you a message and you never talked to that person.
But it doesn't warn you if you have that person on your contacts. Either way, if you miss add a person to a group it's your fault.
@stux @signalapp it’s probably my hometown on the forestgrass doing some pushups
The fact that senate confirmed members of the national security apparatus were copacetic to use a consumer grade (although rather secure) communication tool rather than the definitely existing communication tools that might not be on their mobile device (probably for a #InfoSec reason). Was there any indication that there was anyone who said "take this offline, this isn't secure"
Reasons why I think they used Signal. . .one of their tech pals owns it, they're ignorant, or they intentionally stay off gov't channels because those chats could be documented/saved. I have heard some of them do not trust FBI to guard them, probably hiring some J6ers.
@FallsMom @stux It's evading records accountability. AFAIK, Signal is not big techbro-owned. As said on its web site (https://signal.org/) it is owned by a foundation "Signal is an independent nonprofit. We're not tied to any major tech companies, and we can never be acquired by one either. Development is supported by grants and donations from people like you."
Thanks for the info about Signal.
@FallsMom The last one, they used disappearing messages
@stux @signalapp Hegseth clearly did not pay attention to AFN OpSec lessons when he was deployed.
@christopherbrown @signalapp I'm pretty sure he was drunk
@christopherbrown @stux @signalapp Mr Squeakers is very disappointed
@SkaiatheGroza @stux @signalapp Where is OPSEC Linebacker when you need him. He’d flatten DC rn.
@stux @signalapp us gov should'wee donated to signal.