Signal's CEO: Then We're Leaving Sweden | Sweden Herald
-
That is because they just decided to switch to use it for internal communications. This means that they would have to roll back that decision.
Technically only for non-classified internal communication. Classified stuff is restricted to fee discussed only using military approved locked down hardware. But still, issuing a strong recommendation for Signal above all other options when communicating using regular devices is a good thing. Lots of "regular" conversations can still leak more than you expect through metadata, timing, etc, so they trust Signal to protect that
-
I agree that it would destroy the reason many people use it, but they aren't outlawing Signal specifically. What they are doing is arguably worse, but this isn't an "anti-Signal" action.
-
There needs to be a messaging app which provides a backdoor for every government that requests it. Every time some dumbfuck legislator asks for a super-giga-secure-backdoor they promise not to misuse, they should be directed to that app.
Imagine the complexity of the encryption algo with 100 different custom made backdoors!
-
I don't get how its supposed to work...they want to require messengers to include backdoors in their software? So when a program is FOSS, then you can literally just use it knowing there is no backdoor..also, what blocks you from using a server in different country? Wtf that even means...
Then politicians would simply require for "any technical measures to ensure the backdoor to be available" or something like that, meaning it would be Signals' job to ensure the backdoor works. They don't give a shit how something is done (IT is just too complex for most of them), only that it gets done somehow. For that very reason federal digital services are such a shitshow so often, they just don't understand what they even ask for so professionals always have to work around politicians' demands constantly breaking even the most basic security principles.
-
"Leaving a country" for digital services usually means not providing services there anymore.
Yeah, but why do they feel forced to? I understand the EU is imposing fines on Meta and Google because they have branches in member states. But Sweden can do to Signal as much as the US could do to The Pirate Bay.
-
Sci-fi writing in here I see
Brainlet questions what possible benefit a Swiss company that sells privacy might receive from cozing up to a fascist state.
Lies about what the CEO said.
Thanks non-profit is anything but a tax status. Hasn't paid enough attention to all the "non-profit" companies switching to for-profit as soon as it's financially convenient.
Doesn't realize that Proton's biggest security vulnerability is Proton the organization.
Fucking lol.
-
And now it starts. Programs specifically designed to be encrypted getting attacked.
"Now"? Apps like Signals are constantly under fire. Whitaker already told the whole EU it would just leave if they introduced the "chat control" legislation.
-
Imagine the complexity of the encryption algo with 100 different custom made backdoors!
You just encrypt it with every key. It's wasteful, but not all that complicated.
At that point, you just don't encrypt things at all.
-
Is this law broad enough to also catch up Proton and its services?
This attack by governments on encryption is getting more and more concerning.
Is this law broad enough to also catch up Proton and its services?
They don't need a law, they already logged and complied on request
-
Brainlet questions what possible benefit a Swiss company that sells privacy might receive from cozing up to a fascist state.
Lies about what the CEO said.
Thanks non-profit is anything but a tax status. Hasn't paid enough attention to all the "non-profit" companies switching to for-profit as soon as it's financially convenient.
Doesn't realize that Proton's biggest security vulnerability is Proton the organization.
Fucking lol.
Yeah, I don't get if these are Proton PR bots, or they're just heavily invested in the company and are in denial. They just take that PR, add some flourish then a bunch of unrelated BS.
-
Sci-fi writing in here I see
He clearly didn’t support Trump in general
lie
so it’s not possible to add backdoors
lie
Proton business model is inherently disincentivizing them to do so. They are a profitable company with a clear profile that would lose so many customers if they decide to do so.
Didn't work on you
Proton is incorporated in Switzerland, it’s unclear what the benefit would be to “appease” Trump.
Straw man
So even if Andy Yen was a full on MAGA, he still wouldn’t have autonomy to decide that.
being a non profit and him owning enough of it to do what he wants are unrelated.
There is absolutely nothing in the history of Proton that suggests they would be open to backdooring their software.
There is a long track record of choices to protect users’ privacy.
Tell that french activist they turned logging on for and gave up to the authorities.
-
Imagine the complexity of the encryption algo with 100 different custom made backdoors!
That's the secret you give them all the same backdoor.
-
Sci-fi writing in here I see
I wanted to reply to your points but someone beat me to it.
Learn to think critically. Close the app for a day, cool off and re-read all of these replies.
Do you think we would all just dump on something for the fun of it or just to piss you off? This isnt reddit.
Cmon man, take a second, look around and understand that the taste of boot leather is not very pleasant. Proton is not here for your privacy ... I mean it is, unless you're a french journalist ... or a person of interest for the right people.
-
"Now"? Apps like Signals are constantly under fire. Whitaker already told the whole EU it would just leave if they introduced the "chat control" legislation.
Apps like Signals
This was about a different app named 'Signal', I think, without the s.
-
Meanwhile, the Swedish Armed Forces recently decided to use Signal for secure communication: https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/aktuellt/2025/02/forsvarsmakten-anvander-appen-signal-for-oppen-kommunikation-med-mobiltelefoner/
Half of the original article:
The Armed Forces, on the other hand, are negative and write in a letter to the government that the proposal cannot be realized "without introducing vulnerabilities and backdoors that can be exploited by third parties", reports SVT.
So that's covered.
-
I'm a bit surprised that the armed forces are openly opposing this, but good for them!
I mean beyond everything else, any group actually interested in the safety and security of citizens (so, not politicians or cops anywhere apparently), should be pushing everything to be encrypted everywhere. In the modern digital world anything not properly encrypted is at risk for ate tracks by bad actors.
-
Yeah, I don't get if these are Proton PR bots, or they're just heavily invested in the company and are in denial. They just take that PR, add some flourish then a bunch of unrelated BS.
"It is harder to convince someone they have been tricked than to trick them in the first place" and such.
-
I'm not familiar with EU law, but wouldn't this set a precidence across the whole EU?
Not unless turned into EU law, or a lawsuit over it reaches EU court. Individual countries can't change the rules of the union on their own.
There's already EU court precedence against mandatory backdoors
-
Literally the first sentence of the article: "The government wants Signal and Whatsapp to be forced to store messages sent using the apps."
WireGuard protocol logs very little information by default. There is literally no way to make it log more than it does by default.
Even then, Mullvad has no customer information. You're given a customer number, which is intentional.
I stand my initial post in that there is very little, if anything, to record on a Mullvad server. If I'm not mistaken, Mullvad recently announced they are running all VPN services through a RAM only setup, therefore, there aren't even any drives to record customer information even if they chose to.
-
Not unless turned into EU law, or a lawsuit over it reaches EU court. Individual countries can't change the rules of the union on their own.
There's already EU court precedence against mandatory backdoors
Is there a supremacy clause like what the US has? Like, if the EU court has a ruling, does a member country get to override that?
