They're messengers. They have messenger features. The details of how those features are implemented is what matter. Last I checked, Telegram doesn't even have encrypted group messaging, and it has a serverside database of who's talking to who.
I don't know what "feature" you're talking about not existing until 2014, but before Open Whisper Systems, the thing we call Signal was "TextSecure", a literal SMS replacement.
This is true. At every point where Telegram and Signal had the choice between being a pleasant messenger experience or being secure and private, each made decisions consistent with all their previous decisions.
Forcing you to use your phone number and then the same second you created your account go behind your back and spam everyone you just did so is neither private nor something many would associate with secure.
I guess something doesn't have to be secure if you can pretend it is public.
Of course Signal has carefully designed their goals to allow them to do that but in doing so that is a straight up asshole move in a context where they should be seeking trust?
Absolutely mind bending.
This is a great improvement, but they have already proven they can't be trusted with anyone's phone number so it is a damn shame they still won't allow you to create an account without one.
It is a decent service otherwise, but my fricking god I hope they at some point realize the harm they've done.
Up until today I've been ashamed of suggesting signal. Hopefully that will change with this feature.
My general experience in discussing this over the last 10 years is that nerds like us generally find it absolutely mindbending when privacy services make decisions in the interests of ordinary people, such as using the phone-number-based addressing ordinary people already use in order to minimize serverside metadata. But I think it mostly just speaks to how carefully people aren't thinking about the project's goals, and the fixation they have on their own goals. A lot of people are just super angry they can't write their own TUI for Signal.
Having to share your phone number does not meaningfully affect security and privacy. Being able to sign up without a phone number enables anonymity. Anonymity and privacy are related, to be sure, but anonymity is not required for privacy.
I think it's a mischaracterization to say that they spam "everyone" when you create an account. They only tell others who a) have you in their contact lists, and b) have an account with Signal too. I agree, though, that they should be more transparent about this, and require that you opt in to this behavior.
Personally, though, I don't mind it; for the most part this is how I've discovered other contacts on Signal, and vice versa. But I can understand why it makes some people uncomfortable.
What I find "absolutely mind bending" is that this is such a big deal-breaker for people such as yourself. While I wouldn't call it a nothingburger, it's -- to me -- at most a simple error in assuming what people are comfortable with.
Edit: I re-read what a few others had said upthread about how indiscriminate this new-user notification is. The examples of notifications being sent to users that had been blocked via the phone's built-in call/SMS blocking features are especially chilling. There's really no excuse for that, but still, to me this automatic notification is a feature developed in good faith, with good intentions, not some nefarious privacy invasion. They should be taken to task for its failings, but dismissing the entire platform over it seems a bit over the top.
> Having to share your phone number does not meaningfully affect security and privacy.
Of course it does, way more than "meaningfully". I actually wonder if I got your message right taken that I am not a native speaker of English.
Do you mean that if your phone is public (and you are known to be the owner) you will not get creepy calls, have ot listed as a free pizza delivery for calls after 23:00, having it blacklisted, ....
I must have understood wrong.
Otherwise what is the number of your president/prime minister? Or the CEO of Google/Apple/... I do not think they are public.
