[HN Gopher] Leaked phone number of Mark Zuckerberg reveals he is...
___________________________________________________________________
Leaked phone number of Mark Zuckerberg reveals he is on Signal
Author : gaius_baltar
Score : 336 points
Date : 2021-04-05 20:46 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.indiatoday.in)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.indiatoday.in)
| todd3834 wrote:
| Is it really surprising that he would have all of the most
| popular messaging apps? Facebook's playbook of copying popular
| features from apps gaining traction is by no means a secret.
|
| I'm not totally convinced by the narrative that Mark doesn't
| trust his own tools so he prefers Signal.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Besides, he may just have friends that are not on whatsapp or
| messenger. What is he gonna do, ghost them?
| black_puppydog wrote:
| As in, having them followed by "ghosts" to report back to him
| what they're doing, like he's doing with the rest of us? :)
| karmasimida wrote:
| That is my first thought too.
|
| He might be just trying to experience Signal here and there,
| and see how to take something from it to facebook.
|
| I don't think he is using this seriously.
| goatinaboat wrote:
| _I'm not totally convinced by the narrative that Mark doesn't
| trust his own tools so he prefers Signal._
|
| He has tape over the camera of his own computer in Facebook HQ
| nine_k wrote:
| Everybody should have a shutter over the camera, just to
| protect from blunders and misclicks.
|
| No matter how you trust _your_ software, some malware may
| want to activate it, especially at a high-value target like
| Zuckerberg (or Bezos, or Nadella, etc).
|
| Alas, microphones are not as easy to deactivate.
| dheera wrote:
| > Alas, microphones are not as easy to deactivate.
|
| Easier on desktops that don't have a built-in mic.
|
| I use a mic with a hardware power switch.
| the-dude wrote:
| Mics don't use power. Pedantic, I know.
| jcims wrote:
| Some do. Pedantic, I know. ;)
| rorykoehler wrote:
| Related... do you know if there are there laptops with
| condenser microphones built in?
| dheera wrote:
| Mine does actually ...
| [deleted]
| boogies wrote:
| > Alas, microphones are not as easy to deactivate.
|
| That's why eg. all Purism products with them have hardware
| kill switches (to physically disconnect them).
| mFixman wrote:
| Covering a camera always seemed like unjustified paranoia
| for me.
|
| If someone can access my camera and spy my unkept beard,
| why won't they also be able to access my keyboard and spy
| my main email account password?
| base698 wrote:
| It's also for personal mistakes. Accidentally clicking
| the camera on when in your underwear for example.
| wp381640 wrote:
| Tape over camera originated with the spate of online
| webcam blackmail attacks a few years ago.
|
| Lots of young girls were being lured into installing
| malware and had their bedrooms recorded.
| icybox wrote:
| Actually, they are. Just grab headphones with microphone
| and use scissors and keep the jack in.
| carmen_sandiego wrote:
| Bold to assume I have a mic jack in 2021.
| jhugo wrote:
| Don't know about laptops but on recent desktop
| motherboards the jack detection and output/input
| switching is done in software. Probably the case on many
| laptops too. So this approach shouldn't be considered a
| "hardware switch" as it's still possible to capture audio
| from another mic even when a headset is plugged in.
| alias_neo wrote:
| On both of my XPSs I can switch to internal or external
| mic regardless of a headset behind plugged in, so the
| snarky suggestion to use a cut-off headphone jack is
| misguided and won't work on many modern laptops.
| tamrix wrote:
| He could pay a team of 100 developers to do that.
|
| If he really wanted to that, he would have several phones with
| separate numbers for exploring other messaging apps as not to
| cross business and personal matters.
| nine_k wrote:
| (1) You can't always trust the opinions of 100 developers,
| even if you can somehow consolidate them. Certain things are
| best seen firsthand, even if you have opinions of top 20
| people you trust.
|
| (2) Lugging multiple phones is clumsy enough that most people
| won't consider it, most CEOs, even more so. Two is somehow
| tolerable. And you need competitors' apps always available,
| to try things while you have an idea, and to easily compare.
| 74d-fe6-2c6 wrote:
| Many people who are incompetent about technology have this
| weird paradoxical attitude towards apps where they will install
| random apps without even thinking twice and have loads of apps
| on their phone which are basically just mobile web sites but
| when it comes to messengers it's the opposite and they feel
| overwhelmed by having more than WA,FB and IG.
|
| On the other side of the spectrum are people who won't just
| install some random app without due dilligence, make a pass on
| appified websites and don't care about how many messengers they
| have on the phone because it doesn't really matter anyway due
| to the reactive usage pattern. I suppose MZ is like that.
| deadmutex wrote:
| Yeah, it is likely that he was just checking up on the
| competition. I wouldn't be surprised if turned the narrative on
| this by saying something like the following:
|
| "I was curious to check it out.. it wasn't very good, so I
| reverted back to Messenger/Whatsapp."
|
| IIRC, he made similar comments when he was spotted using G+.
|
| Disclaimer: My views are my own (and not necessarily shared by
| my employers).
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| What are the odds that Zuckerberg knows a lot of people in
| the tech business and some of them are Signal users?
| Grustaf wrote:
| > Disclaimer: My views are my own (and not necessarily shared
| by my employers).
|
| Who is your employer? It's not mentioned in your profile...
| rataata_jr wrote:
| Maybe its mentioned in one of his earlier comments on this
| platform.
| saagarjha wrote:
| It is indeed.
| uoaei wrote:
| It doesn't seem like you are aware that WhatsApp hired Moxie
| Marlinspike, the creator of the Signal encryption protocol,
| to re-implement it for WhatsApp. AFAIK it is still used in
| WhatsApp today.
|
| I will take this moment also to mention that "re-implement"
| isn't exactly right in that they modified the protocol
| slightly to allow for someone in control of the
| administration server to change a user's private key without
| their knowing, so that the admin can decrypt the E2E
| communications using the known key.
| anticensor wrote:
| > they modified the protocol slightly to allow for someone
| in control of the administration server to change a user's
| private key without their knowing, so that the admin can
| decrypt the E2E communications using the known key.
|
| You mean, no-longer-E2EE.
| 7a1c9427 wrote:
| > I will take this moment also to mention that "re-
| implement" isn't exactly right in that they modified the
| protocol slightly to allow for someone in control of the
| administration server to change a user's private key
| without their knowing, so that the admin can decrypt the
| E2E communications using the known key.
|
| Do you have a source for that claim?
| lxgr wrote:
| GP is probably referring to this:
|
| https://boelter.blog/2016/04/whats-app-retransmission-
| vulner...
| 7a1c9427 wrote:
| I think that is a very charitable assumption about the GP
| claim. The linked article describes a very specific
| implementation vulnerability around handling of offline
| messages that would appear to be routed in user
| experience being ranked higher than operational security
| by WhatsApp (understandably). In this case it also does
| notify the user once they are online, and the original
| phone is logged out alerting the compromised user.
|
| The GP claim is far broader that all E2E communication
| can be compromised without user awareness permitting
| ongoing communication between two unaware parties to be
| monitored.
| uoaei wrote:
| > I think that is a very charitable assumption about the
| GP claim. The linked article describes a very specific
| implementation vulnerability around handling of offline
| messages that would appear to be routed in user
| experience being ranked higher than operational security
| by WhatsApp (understandably).
|
| Both points (security vulnerability and user experience
| prioritization) can be true simultaneously. This is the
| root of all plausible deniability when it comes to
| installing vulnerabilities in technologies.
|
| I don't see why we should care at all about WhatsApp's
| intentions with the change when the effects are so
| pernicious. Facebook et al. definitely do not deserve the
| benefit of our doubt anymore.
| 7a1c9427 wrote:
| This is true. But I would suggest your operational
| security has bigger issues than this potential
| vulnerability if you are using WhatsApp.
|
| Regardless - you still haven't given a source for you
| original claim. "not deserving benefit of the doubt" does
| not qualify. If the linked article is in fact you source
| then in the future please do not exaggerate such claims
| as you have done. I would have expected a claim from the
| article to read (along with a link to the source!):
|
| > WhatsApp have modified the protocol slightly
| auspiciously for user experience but this allows a third
| party attacker to intercept messages sent offline only
| alerting the sender after they have been disclosed.
| secfirstmd wrote:
| Yeh that's a big claim. Love to know source
| EGreg wrote:
| I would also like to mention that information is
| encrypted and cannot be proven.
| senectus1 wrote:
| this is not surprising. most "influential" people like business
| leaders, politicians, reporters, A listers are on signal.
| cocoggu wrote:
| It would have been weird if he didn't have any account on the
| competitors platforms. You want to check the features they offer,
| the UX... This article didn't say anything about how often he is
| using it.
| astatine wrote:
| But naturally! He is worried about his internal IT team getting
| access to his own messages, like the Register's BOFH[0] /s [0]
| https://www.theregister.com/offbeat/bofh/
| michaelcampbell wrote:
| Privacy for me but not for thee.
| Havoc wrote:
| These days you need basically all the message apps anyway unless
| your circle of friends is super homogenous
| smelendez wrote:
| I mean, I think it would be reasonable for Zuckerberg's friends
| to assume that he wouldn't want to use a competing product?
| Nobody would be offended if the CEO of Coca-Cola declined a can
| of pepsi.
| headmelted wrote:
| The CEO of Pepsi might.
| [deleted]
| woutr_be wrote:
| That is if all your friends live in the same country, I have
| quite a few friends all over the world, and especially in Asia,
| people prefer specific apps. For friends in China it's WeChat,
| for Japan it's LINE. Other friends use Facebook, my family uses
| WhatsApp. Here in HK it's a mix between WhatsApp, Telegram or
| Signal.
| chadash wrote:
| This isn't a story. I've installed competitors' apps many times
| to see what they are like. Doesnt even mean that I use them
| beyond seeing what they are like. And even so, not a big deal if
| you occasionally use a competitor.
| progx wrote:
| Zuckerberg is a pro, he knows what is good ;-)
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| How dare you suggest Mark Zuckerberg is a hypocrite after said
| "Privacy is no longer a social norm", and then bought all houses
| surrounding his one.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/11/facebook-...
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-buys-4-homes...
| khalilravanna wrote:
| "Zuckerberg reportedly took action after he learned that a
| developer wanted to purchase one of his neighbor's homes and
| use the fact that Zuckerberg lived close by as a marketing
| tactic. ... Zuckerberg will lease the four homes he just bought
| back to its current residents."
|
| Not sure how this paints Zuckerberg in a bad light. The bad guy
| seems to be the developer who was going to use his fame to
| advertise, thus exposing Zuckerberg to way less privacy than a
| normal person. This was Zuckerberg's way to eke out a bit more
| privacy in the vein of a normal human. I mean he left the
| people in their homes.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > after he learned that a developer wanted to purchase one of
| his neighbor's homes and use the fact that Zuckerberg lived
| close by as a marketing tactic
|
| That's just... creepy from the developer.
|
| Also how is living next to Mark Zuckerberg a perk? Unless you
| want to build an illegally zoned Startup Incubator focused on
| IoT and the main acquirer you're targeting happens to live
| next door and notices your product everyday...
| MichaelMcG wrote:
| >"I mean he left the people in their homes."
|
| This sounds more akin to a discussion about Oligarchs after
| the collapse of the Soviet Union than a discussion about an
| American CEO in California.
|
| Kind of eerie, even if you didn't intend it to sound that
| way.
| viro wrote:
| Not really just kind of proves the point he didn't want
| people selling houses near him as. " buy now to live next
| to the. CEO of Facebook" that sounds like a HUGE safety
| problem for him AND his family.
| georgeplusplus wrote:
| The realtor being a creep still doesn't change the fact
| that the guy who says you have no privacy, wanted more
| privacy.
| TomSwirly wrote:
| Rich people have existed before today, you know, and yet
| they didn't do such things.
|
| > sounds like a HUGE safety problem for him AND his
| family.
|
| You watch too many action movies. No one's going to spend
| the months of background checks and negotiation and tens
| of millions of dollars it would take to buy a mansion
| next to Zuckerthing's just to kidnap him or something.
|
| The threat to rich people are from career criminals, not
| other rich people.
| [deleted]
| greggturkington wrote:
| Yeah Zuckerberg is now Boris Berezovsky amirite
| MichaelMcG wrote:
| Maybe I should have said he sounded like a feudal lord,
| it doesn't matter to me. I wasn't diving into the
| circumstances, just the phrasing of that last sentence I
| quoted.
| greggturkington wrote:
| So the transfer of state-owned assets to oligarchs is the
| significantly comparable as buying four houses and
| renting them to their owners? Do you even know what
| happened after the fall of the Soviet Union?
| MichaelMcG wrote:
| Man, you're reading too far into my comment. I was just
| saying the sentence reads like:
|
| A wealthy individual (WI) coming to his neighbors.
|
| WI: "I'm worried your homes might be bought by
| individuals that affect my privacy, I know you don't
| intend to move, so let's make a deal that you can still
| live here and pay rent."
|
| Neighbors: "Ok"
|
| Random YC Comment: "(WI) left them in their homes, rather
| than reneging on his deal and casting them out of their
| familial homes to the street."
|
| ----
|
| A Feudal Lord (FL) dies and his heir receives the
| fiefdom.
|
| FL: "You are now my serfs and I've decided you may
| continue to live here and pay me a percentage of the crop
| yield, I am a generous lord."
|
| Serf: "OK, m'lord"
|
| Random YC Comment: "(FL) left the peasants in their huts
| like the generous lord he is."
|
| ---
|
| A state industry has been privatized and is now owned by
| an Oligarch, to include the housing provided to the
| workers.
|
| Oligarch: "Party land now my land, you may continue to
| live and work here to provide me profit, I am a generous
| businessman."
|
| Worker: "KhOROShO"
|
| Random YC Comment: "The Oligarch left the workers in
| their housing, as long as it still provided him a
| profit."
| greggturkington wrote:
| In this case a capitalist put in an offer to purchase
| homes, the owners accepted the offer. They didn't risk
| being "cast out."
|
| They were offered a lease agreement, and they accepted
| this offer. They were not "left" there.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Some people sold themselves into slavery, i.e. became
| slaves willingly, and were bought by a capitalist.
|
| The idea that capitalism guarantees liberty is dangerous
| and absurd.
| greggturkington wrote:
| They didn't risk being "cast out," they were not "left"
| there.
| permo-w wrote:
| I mean this non-rhetorically: are you joking?
| greggturkington wrote:
| > I mean this non-rhetorically _[sic]_ : are you joking?
|
| You think that I'm joking about Zuckerberg being a poor
| comparison to those specific oligarchs?
|
| I mean this unrhetorically, what part of my comment could
| you possibly misinterpret so horribly?
| SippinLean wrote:
| Serfs were not paid for their homes, and in many cases
| were _not_ allowed to stay in their homes. How does this
| resemble feudalism?
| serf wrote:
| finding the homes of the rich and famous is absolutely
| _trivial_.
|
| >I mean he left the people in their homes.
|
| how good of him . /s
|
| Generally if someone does something you don't like you ask
| them to stop; if they don't you sue them , or if conditions
| allow you ask law enforcement to step in.
|
| >This was Zuckerberg's way to eke out a bit more privacy in
| the vein of a normal human.
|
| on what planet do normal humans buy all the surrounding real
| estate in some of the most expensive places to live to 'eke
| out a bit more privacy'?
|
| This is quite clearly a show of finance and power that few
| 'normal human' people would ever be able to demonstrate
| themselves.
|
| Good on him, i'm not upset about it, he SHOULD spend his
| money how he wants -- i'm upset that people try to paint the
| behavior as normal and run-of-the-mill.
|
| There is nothing normal/every-man/run-of-the-mill about Mark
| Zuckerberg's existence.
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| I don't see how it is hypocritical. Privacy is not a norm, it
| is a privilege of people like Zuckerberg.
| kjrose wrote:
| This is precisely it. Mark is saying that privacy isn't the
| norm. Similar to how being a billionaire isn't the norm.
|
| However when you have enough money you can afford such
| privileges.
| ingenieros wrote:
| Still nowhere as egregious as his shady attempt to buy out
| native land in Hawaii through proxy lawsuits:
| https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/17/mark-zuckerb...
| gefh wrote:
| Hawaiian land ownership is a fragmented mess and this is not
| at all unusual. I hate fb as much as the next guy but this
| was not shady.
| d3ntb3ev1l wrote:
| Tell that to the Hawaiians who are suing
| darig wrote:
| Being an apologist for a system that forces people to
| endure a fragmented mess is very shady, and very unusual.
| vmception wrote:
| You know actually there are additional benefits and privileges
| of this.
|
| In tax-exempt organizations or any organization with "self-
| dealing" prohibitions, you can still get any benefit you want
| with asset prices.
|
| So for example, your own private foundation can own all the
| houses around yours (and be rented if so desired) and be sold
| strategically to give newer indications of market value for
| your own house. Sell them all at once and you may be cratering
| market values for your personal property, or you may be raising
| the property value, but as long as the funds come from the
| market and you don't have a self-dealing prohibition. Your
| personally held property being eligible for contribution to
| that foundation too (or other tax exempt organization type that
| you might not have any control over), with its current value
| being a consideration. Although Zuckerberg famously has an LLC
| that is not tax-exempt for their philanthropic missions, it
| doesn't mean he/they don't have any tax-exempt organizations,
| and they're definitely not precluded from forming or using one
| in the future and transferring those assets when convenient.
|
| Yes, you also have the privilege of aiming to get more privacy.
|
| Latching on to any one thing just reveals how little privilege
| you have in comparison. Many other people wouldn't talk about
| it, as they employ similar strategies.
| mam2 wrote:
| because 1 is not an opinion but a fact. and probably a fact he
| probably disagree with, like you
|
| people don't care about privacy but it's not exactly his fault.
| then his job is to capitalize on it. why would he care. you
| would probably do the same ..
| vidarh wrote:
| Ask people for unfettered access to their unlocked phone,
| even with them sitting there and watching you to prevent you
| from doing anything but poke around, and you will find a
| whole lot of people suddenly care more about privacy.
|
| What is probably closer to the truth is that people care
| little about privacy from someone they think they will never
| come face to face with, and who they believe won't leak that
| information to anyone they will come face to face with.
|
| The problem comes when people don't have the knowledge
| necessary to assess the risk of that happening in any given
| scenario.
| Milner08 wrote:
| I would definitely not do the same and its not a fact. Plenty
| of people value their privacy they are just not as tech savvy
| and not aware that they are giving it up.
| okprod wrote:
| Regarding your second point, I think it's more that people
| don't care as much about privacy if the consequences seem to
| be low/nonexistent, and they weigh their interest in
| platforms like Instagram, TikTok, etc. more highly than the
| potential negative impacts of their privacy being violated. I
| know users of Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Slack, etc. who
| will almost definitely never move to encrypted email because
| they like the platform and the community. Folks on HN and in
| the tech sector in general can have quite different
| experiences with those in the world at-large, and one's
| viewpoint on this will differ based on who's in your
| networks. I think it's likely if you walk down the street in
| Manhattan or LA and ask someone if they know what DRM,
| copyleft, or GDPR is, the answer will be no. But they will
| care if the music they have can't be copied/shared, they'll
| know Wikipedia, and they'll care if their information with
| Google can't be deleted or is sold to other companies.
| nirv wrote:
| It's definitely not a fact, but rather an argument.
|
| Non-technical people within my circle appreciate GDPR. They
| fall into recent Apple's privacy advertising, FWIW. Many of
| my non-IT business peers have moved to private email services
| long ago -- e.g. Protonmail, Mailbox.org, Fastmail, etc. --
| regardless of Google's Eric Schmidt[1] anti-privacy stance
| back in the day. Almost everyone I constantly communicate
| with use Telegram, and privacy of comms (FWIW) was among
| selling points at the time of switching the IM.
|
| I won't exaggerate the value of privacy for a general public.
| But since Snowden's publications, Cambridge Analytica scandal
| and GDPR discussion with a widespread media coverage, common
| citizens became much more privacy-concerned, at least in
| Europe.
|
| Below I quote highlights from the recent FRA (EU Agency for
| Fundamental Rights) survey report "Your rights matter: Data
| protection and privacy - Fundamental Rights Survey", June
| 2020[2]:
|
| _> 41% do not want to share any personal data with private
| companies, almost double the number compared to public
| bodies;_
|
| _> the type of personal data influences people's willingness
| to share. Only around 5% want to share their facial images or
| fingerprints with private companies;_
|
| _> 72% know the privacy settings on their smart phones. But
| 24% do not know how to check the privacy settings on their
| apps;_
|
| _> 55% fear criminals or fraudsters accessing their personal
| data. Around 30% worry about advertisers, businesses and
| foreign governments' access to information without them
| knowing;_
|
| _> 33% do not read the terms and conditions when using
| online services compared with 22% who always read them;_
|
| _> 69% know about the GDPR. A similar number know their
| national data protection supervisory authority (71%);_
|
| _> only 51% are aware that they can access their personal
| data held by companies._
|
| [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-
| schmid...
|
| [2] https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra
| -20... (PDF)
| HenryBemis wrote:
| > people don't care about privacy
|
| Funny you phrase it like that. When I discuss with people
| about 'privacy', nobody has anything to hide. When I take 2-3
| minutes explaining to them why 'someone' (data markets) out
| there knows: what type of porn gets them off, what they shop,
| how much money they have, what diseases they have (that may
| impact their chances to a life insurance - theirs' and their
| kids'), their drinking habits (that may impact their premiums
| on car insurance), who they meet/greet/f..k..
|
| Then their expression changes a bit. _Ignorance is bliss_. I
| awaken 1-2 people at a time. BUT (big but - sorry for the
| caps) "all my friends is on FB, and Chrome is such a nice
| browser".
|
| > you would probably do the same
|
| I _used_ to know a guy who geniunely had the opinion: if it
| wasn 't illegal to sell heroin to kids, I'd be a billionaire
| right now selling to all my kids, starting with my kids'
| friends.
|
| Unfortunately this person has kids, voting rights, walks
| among us. Yes I want to be a billionaire (I'm many-many zeros
| away from this target). No I wouldn't sell heroin (or your
| kids' photos you post on social media) to anyone else. Zuck
| has no problem getting 13yo on Instagram, profiling them, and
| trading their data. So NO.
| matz1 wrote:
| But its not the privacy itself that people care about.
|
| The reason is people care is because this information can
| be used to harm them.
|
| The reason I care about my credit card number being public
| is because it can be used to stole my money but If my
| credit card number can be public while still keeping my
| money belong to me then I would much prefer that.
|
| The better way would be to make everything as public as
| much as possible then fixes the issue that arise due to
| that information being public.
| captaincurrie wrote:
| I think this is an important point to make. I think most
| people, myself included, are fine with sharing personal
| information if the person i'm sharing it with isn't going
| to use it against me. That's always been the case dealing
| with people.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| I think that it is clear than then you post on Facebook
| about my/your/someone's cancer treatment, data
| aggregators will mark this in your medical records. An
| insurer 20-30 years from now will easily correlate that
| my/you/someone's kid has me/you/etc as a father, and
| therefore have increased chances of cancer (or some other
| disease) and thus affect their chance to get life
| insurance or affect the price of premiums.
|
| When you share with FB (imho) it is _clear_ that you don
| 't share with a person, but with a hungry-for-information
| beast. Didn't people hear about Cambridge Analytica? Is
| anyone so naive so as to believe that this was 'the end
| of information leakage' by FB? (or other similar
| platforms, such as Pinterest - in the case someone makes
| a "medicine for my X disease" table).
| matz1 wrote:
| >and thus affect their chance to get life insurance or
| affect the price of premiums
|
| So the real issue is can't get insurance/too expensive
| insurance, not the privacy itself.
|
| If this is fixed then I don't care if the information
| being public.
| logicchains wrote:
| Maybe he bought the surrounding houses to make it harder for
| snipers? He's not exactly a popular guy, and there are a lot of
| guns in America.
| thepangolino wrote:
| Snipers? Too much trouble. I'd just go with mortars.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Why do you feel the need to make up totally absurd excuses to
| protect his image?
|
| Do you know him personally or has he done something for you?
| Why do you believe he is a person of integrity?
| logicchains wrote:
| > Why do you feel the need to make up totally absurd
| excuses to protect his image?
|
| You Americans really have no sense of humour sometimes.
| Anyway, how exactly is it protecting his image to imply
| people might want to shoot him? Being widely disliked
| enough to drive people to that isn't exactly a sign of
| shining character. It's one of the few things the left and
| right in American can unite on: hating the zucc.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| I think curent zeitgwist is that you can't tell if
| someone is trolling or is bonkers! Otherwise,-I
| appreciate it.
|
| Never been to US myself, but fair enough.
| GoblinSlayer wrote:
| He will be simply replaced with Mk 2.
| V-2 wrote:
| That would make perfect sense, since public figures mostly
| get assassinated at their homes.
| darig wrote:
| Or it could be that someone else in his address book is on Signal
| and gave the app permission to add him from their address book as
| a ghost account.
|
| Isn't that annoying when apps do that, Zark?
| kube-system wrote:
| Isn't a bit of a privacy flaw that signal exposes who uses the
| app by phone number?
| msh wrote:
| Well its a tradeoff to get the instant social network of your
| phonebook.
| upofadown wrote:
| Well, certainly an _anonymity_ flaw. Privacy is different than
| anonymity. Signal does not purport to provide anonymity. Anyone
| on the system can check for any other user by knowing their
| phone number. That tends to be the cost of the convenience of
| the automatic contact discovery provided by phone based
| messengers like Signal.
|
| Anonymous messaging is an entire category by itself. It is a
| much more difficult problem. Fortunately, most people don't
| need anonymity, most of the time. I really don't care who knows
| that I am communicating with friends, family or the people
| related to my business. If anything, I care less that someone
| might find out I use Signal. If I encounter a situation where I
| need to be anonymous I can and will have to take special
| measures for a while. Temporary anonymity is relatively easy.
| The identity management is a cinch.
| devwastaken wrote:
| It is. Its also a security issue - Phone numbers aren't unique.
| It was interesting seeing signal say my deceased father was 'on
| signal', it's just the same number recycled to someone else.
| herpderperator wrote:
| I think unique has a specific meaning in your context which
| isn't what the standard definition of unique means. There are
| never two people in a carrier's database assigned to the same
| number. It can however be assigned to another person as long
| as it is deassigned from the previous person. The number, at
| any point, is always unique.
| Karsteski wrote:
| How so? I don't find it violating in any way that someone knows
| that I'm using a messenging app due to my phone number. They
| aren't exactly private in the first place.
|
| It would be the same if there were usernames, although those
| would be far harder to assign to a person. Thankfully, Signal
| is working on that feature and hopefully it's released soon.
| I'd like to one day not have any phone number at all. It's a
| system that feels very much antiquated...
| deepstack wrote:
| https://app.wire.com already has that feature and it is based
| on signal protocol.
| arkadiyt wrote:
| Wire uses MLS [1], it has nothing to do with the Signal
| protocol.
|
| [1]: https://messaginglayersecurity.rocks/
| sdfzug wrote:
| afaik Wire works on MLS like many others do - but
| according to Wikipedia Wire uses the Signal Protocol.
| Your "source" does not back up your claim
| creata wrote:
| I just read the Wikipedia page and it says, emphasis
| mine:
|
| > Wire's instant messages are encrypted with _Proteus_ ,
| a protocol that Wire Swiss developed _based on_ the
| Signal Protocol.
|
| That doesn't sound like "Wire uses the Signal Protocol"
| to me.
| uoaei wrote:
| Has it been audited by external, independent security
| researchers?
| Bancakes wrote:
| Yes, it's open source and anyone can look at the source
| code instead of appealing to authority.
| gsich wrote:
| "look" is a weak word. Anyone with eyes can look.
| uoaei wrote:
| That's not what I asked. Generally laypeople are not
| going to be good judges of whether or not an encryption
| protocol is sufficiently secure.
|
| Has it been audited by _security researchers_?
| Bancakes wrote:
| You're assuming it takes considerable skill to fuzz an
| algorithm or look for back doors and easter eggs? To
| answer your question, I don't know if Wire's been audited
| by paid researchers. I personally prefer a customer-
| exposed product whose each commit you can look up rather
| than the remote promise of security in a locked and
| hidden program.
| uoaei wrote:
| It is not impossible to create code which looks like it
| does one thing while simultaneously doing ya-mother.
|
| http://underhanded-c.org/
| hashhar wrote:
| Why can't it be both?
|
| Bitwarden is open-source (both the server and clients)
| AND has been independently audited for a security review.
| saagarjha wrote:
| > You're assuming it takes considerable skill to fuzz an
| algorithm or look for back doors and easter eggs?
|
| This is usually a good assumption.
| AvocadoCake wrote:
| https://wire.com/en/security/#audits
|
| Yes, with published reports, but it looks like they
| haven't published new ones in a few years.
| jhajhria wrote:
| For a normal consumer it's not a flaw. But if you are a
| journalist or in any profession where sharing number is a big
| NO then yes it's not a good design.
|
| Case 1: me and my friend want to communicate on signal. If he
| messages me on Signal there won't be any way to know if that's
| actually him. I would have to call him and confirm if its
| really him. For a tech-savvy person who is like crazy about
| privacy this is not a big deal. But for a normal consumer this
| make them remove the signal.
|
| Case 2: You want to message someone who you already communicate
| via WhatsApp or calls on signal. Again from an average consumer
| point. Calling them and asking them for their signal ID is
| again inconvenient. Imagine doing this for 400 contacts if you
| try to move from WhatsApp to signal.
|
| There are other secure messaging app which doesn't require
| number or even email. But then again, you meet the person or
| call him and then get his id.
|
| Not sharing mobile number is really for few selected cases and
| those people form a very small percentage of the market.
|
| Having a feature similar to telegram where you share your
| number with selected people. Or have a disposal ID which can be
| used to start a chat and then dispose that ID so that it can'be
| used again or linked to your account. Something like this would
| make more sense and probably serve that small percentage of
| people as well. An ID which gets destroyed once it's used to
| make a connection. One time use ID only. This is a good way as
| well. Secret chats which stays on one device only, or you need
| separate credential for.
|
| I should be able to make a sample app like this. It can be a
| good demo project.
| pengaru wrote:
| signal is not without its shortcomings
| astrange wrote:
| There was a recent issue where Chinese citizens pointed out
| that IMEs with telemetry enabled could capture what you type
| into Signal and it didn't warn you or try to mitigate this;
| the Signal guy ignored them, then dodged them for weeks and
| told everyone they were harassing him, then a white guy
| pointed out the same thing and his suggestions were
| immediately taken up.
| saagarjha wrote:
| If I remember correctly the claim was from a Chinese
| citizen who pointed this out and when Signal didn't treat
| this as a major security issue (which I felt was
| understandable given that her concern was mostly along the
| lines of "you can't say that Signal is secure given that
| people install other software on their phone that could be
| a keylogger so you should have a disclaimer") she decided
| to continue to escalate on social media until she was, IMO,
| harassing Moxie for his "lack of engagement". I didn't come
| away particularly impressed by that exchange.
| codethief wrote:
| Exactly, this had nothing to do with one person being
| Chinese and the other being white.
| yorwba wrote:
| And what was the suggestion? The flow of information is
| (You typing - IME converts key presses into text - Signal
| receives text) so Signal can't do anything to prevent a
| malicious IME from sending the text elsewhere. The best
| they could do is raise users' awareness that Signal won't
| protect them if there's spyware with privileged access on
| their device, and that their IME might be such spyware.
| astrange wrote:
| Mainly the OS has security options to prevent IME network
| connections that aren't always on by default, but users
| can enable them. (They might be off because it disables
| some features that need internet access.)
|
| IIRC there was also some Android API that could be used
| in the app to help, but I don't remember what it actually
| did atm.
| alias_neo wrote:
| Perhaps your man the incognito keyboard option? Signal
| uses it, but no API I can imagine will protect against a
| malicious IME.
|
| Worse still, even if you block IME internet access on a
| device with a factory-maliciois IME, they could just
| upload the data using some other service on the device.
|
| Installing a known-good IME seems like the only fix I can
| think of?
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| It gets really interesting when you don't allow apps to see
| your contacts. Take Clubhouse for example, I never allowed it
| to see my contacts but it does show me all the people who have
| leaked my personal info to the app because it's made them auto
| follow me.
|
| So yeah cool I can see that my boss, 4 ex-coworkers, my ex-
| bosses ex-wife, and I think a recruiter have all leaked my
| personal info to Clubhouse.
| dexen wrote:
| Privacy flaw _and_ a security flaw: it is feasible to take over
| somebody 's phone number through social engineering attack on
| the phone co's tech support. The tech support has ability to
| issue replacement SIM cards for users, and if an attacker
| socially engineers them to send SIM card with your number to
| them, it's a game over for you.
|
| That is aside of the obvious problem of phone numbers being
| recycled for re-issue after having been abandoned for a stretch
| of time.
| gaius_baltar wrote:
| Not exactly a security flaw, as the new owner of the phone
| number won't have the original owner's secret keys (they
| never leave the phone, of course) and Signal will still send
| the messages to the previously authenticated client.
|
| Taking over a Signal account requires access to the phone
| number _and_ the password used to register it (or waiting a
| week). And this will still not give the attacker access to
| the private keys; When these keys change, Signal will put an
| alert message on ongoing chats and ask for confirmation.
| rvz wrote:
| yes. That is the point.
| guidingtunnel wrote:
| Here is the original tweet:
| https://twitter.com/Daviey/status/1378646544719753216
| decrypt wrote:
| I sent Mark a message yesterday on Signal. It was "delivered" but
| not "read", obviously. Today, I don't see that contact as a
| Signal user anymore. I see a "Invite to Signal" button on that
| conversation view. Guess he deleted the account?
| mamon wrote:
| Probably changed the phone number after it had been leaked.
| Daviey wrote:
| It was me that originally shared he had a Signal account. But I
| didn't send him a message, because frankly - I had nothing to
| say to him.
|
| I am curious, what did send to him? Also, do you often send
| messages to people you don't know via chat apps linked to phone
| numbers?
| pulkitanand wrote:
| > Also, do you often send messages to people you don't know
| via chat apps linked to phone numbers?
|
| Haha, thanks for the chuckle.
| modeitsch wrote:
| Everyone has something that they want to hide and absolutely
| people like Mark
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Of course he is. He's a lot of things but he's not an idiot and
| using Messenger for private convos.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| I'll never understand the concept of a privacy focused messaging
| app that uses your phone number.
| maxerickson wrote:
| Going to signal from other messengers replaces unknown/hard to
| reason about privacy issues with a single easy to reason about
| issue. The idea was to do that for the broad group of people
| using messengers on their phones.
| root_axis wrote:
| The original design goal of signal was a secure alternative to
| SMS. The use of phone numbers and is core to this philosophy.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Maybe he has friends who are only on Signal that he talks to?
| gtsop wrote:
| Funny comments, but jokes aside, I think we're missing a very
| obvious reason why he has signal. Mark most likely has contacts
| that are super high up in governments and coorporations who use
| signal since they can't trust any other app. People who say that
| he just tested out competition, I think you guys underestimate
| his technological knowledge and his resources waaay too much. If
| he wanted to do that he could have easily ordered someone to get
| him a clean phone with a sim card not linked to his name and let
| that device sit on his desk for testing.
| OminousWeapons wrote:
| An even more obvious answer is he doesn't want his employees or
| his competitors to be able to monitor his private conversations
| which they would be able to do if he were to use most
| commercial messaging systems.
| ViViDboarder wrote:
| They allegedly can't monitor WhatsApp. That's why this is
| news. Of WA is so secure (supposedly implementing the Signal
| protocol), then what use does ZuckerB have for Signal?
| koheripbal wrote:
| ...and an even more obvious reason is that he just wanted to
| see what his competition looked like.
|
| I bet the CEO of McDonalds has been to Burger King at least
| once to check out the customer experience. It really doesn't
| mean anything.
| wunderflix wrote:
| Maybe. And maybe he's there because he is a smart lad who knows
| which products to monitor closely.
|
| After all he bought Instagram and WhatsApp for peanuts, and
| copied the best features of SnapChat.
| JeremyNT wrote:
| He wouldn't need to use his real number/name just to do
| product research though. It would just needlessly confuse any
| contacts who have his actual number and use signal.
|
| Signal also has nothing he can emulate. Its most meaningful
| selling point is that it doesn't have an association or
| integration with a scummy social media company, and people
| using it for that reason are already lost to Facebook. This
| is a feature he cannot ever hope to copy.
| thrwyoilarticle wrote:
| >Signal also has nothing he can emulate.
|
| Both of them now have some variation on encrypted chats.
| Closi wrote:
| > Signal also has nothing he can emulate. Its most
| meaningful selling point is that it doesn't have an
| association or integration with a scummy social media
| company, and people using it for that reason are already
| lost to Facebook. This is a feature he cannot ever hope to
| copy.
|
| Even if there is nothing to emulate, downloading the app at
| least gives him a feel for how close it is to WhatsApp's
| capabilities and would help him understand if it is a major
| competitive threat or not.
| christophilus wrote:
| To me, this is the obvious answer.
| bvaldivielso wrote:
| Maybe you're right, but considering how easy it is to set up a
| signal account (<5 minutes) vs messaging your assistant to
| provision a phone and a sim card (or a couple of them, just so
| that he could text someone), I'm not so sure about it.
|
| Assuming that his threat model is "my phone number will not be
| leaked", signing up on signal with his personal number seems
| fine.
| specialist wrote:
| Yes, and, just a guess: Were I on Team Zuck, I'd have every
| competing messaging app installed, just to see what everyone's
| doing. eg I'm certain everyone touching Instagram also uses
| Snap.
|
| Further: LAN Manager era Microsoft had a Novell Netware group,
| Microsoft also continued to use (Windows port) of sendmail
| while selling Exchange, had an entire Macintosh enthused
| business group.
|
| TLDR: _Of course_ Zuck has a Signal account.
| learningwebdev wrote:
| I would have thought that Mark of all people would have complete
| faith in the privacy of Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp. Very
| curious indeed.
| yunesj wrote:
| Maybe he trusts FB, but has some friends that use Signal.
| ncmncm wrote:
| He is probably aware that other Facebook employees can crack
| into Whatsapp traffic at will. It might be unwise to be caught
| doing it to his account; and probably best to make it look like
| it was somebody else doing it.
| avh02 wrote:
| We're going to need a citation for this claim
| sushid wrote:
| I would imagine Mark of all people to at least do some amount
| of competitive analysis. It's like being surprised Elon test
| drove a BMW i3.
| learningwebdev wrote:
| I was only joking but you have made a valid point.
| antonvs wrote:
| If Elon test drove a BMW i3, we'd be hearing about it direct
| from him via a snarky tweet.
| codethief wrote:
| Hmmm... $ curl -s https://elonmusk.today/
| | grep BMW $
|
| :(
| justjonathan wrote:
| Without regard to the security of any of the protocols, Zucj
| may have just installed to play with it.
| modeitsch wrote:
| he deleted is signal account already
| exabrial wrote:
| Here's the issue with Silicon Valley companies: Consent
|
| Do you consent to be tracked? Doesn't matter we're going to do it
| anyway. And we're going to make a s** ton of money off of it.
|
| Do you consent to having your location tracked? Doesn't matter
| we'll figure it out anyway and we're still going to sell it.
|
| Do you not want an online ordering system? Too bad you're getting
| one anyway and we'll have robots harass your employees with phone
| calls.
|
| Move fast and break things simply means do unethical things
| before regulators catch up to you.
| sorokod wrote:
| Perhaps he liked what he found.
|
| "So he put his tongue in, and took a large lick. "Yes," he said,
| "it is. no doubt about that. And honey, I should say, right down
| to the bottom of the jar. Unless, of course," he said, "somebody
| put cheese in at the bottom just for a joke. Perhaps I had better
| go a little further... just in case..."
|
| - Winnie the pooh, Chapter 5 in which Piglet meets a Heffalump
| tapoxi wrote:
| Why is this surprising? Wouldn't you want to be using a
| competitor's product to know what it's like?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-06 23:02 UTC)