resist1984 @resist1984@social.privacytools.io

@ilyess @Br0m3x The #covidpassport itself is not likely a #GDPR violation because it's an opt-in program. You've not said what specifically would be a GPDR breach w/the covid passport, so I'm not clear on what you're saying. Does the application for the covid passport demand information that is not essential to the passport's existence? Does the passport also require a mobile ph#?

@Br0m3x @ilyess You seem to have misunderstood me. To be clear, if they require a mobile phone number as a precondition to using the health system, that is what violates the /data minimization/ clause of the #GDPR. And you should file a complaint with the DPA about that.

@Br0m3x @ilyess In this case, it's conformity that you're after. The health professionals should conform to the law. You can (and should) file a #GDPR complaint with the DPA saying that the health professionals are violating the data minimization article of the GDPR. It shouldn't cost you anything to file.

@dhfir @ilyess @Hyolobrika Having both messages and money pass through the same platform makes it a juicy target. It's almost like the weakness of centralization. When too many eggs are in one basket, you have more risk for 2 reasons: more interesting for more attackers (gov & criminals both), and you have more to lose.

@Hyolobrika @ilyess @dhfir Complexity is bad. Every time you increase the complexity a system, it inherently weakens the security of it because complexity is proportional to the number of defects. Bringing cryptocurrency onto #Signal obviously increases complexity & attack surface, & it also increases the quantity of threat agents as well as the skill & resourcefullness of threat agents.

@dhfir @ilyess @Hyolobrika It weakens security. And it's not so much the chance that a payload will be /cracked/ (sure they are working on that, but it's actually not a big threat b/c even if they succeed they won't act on it & blow their secret unless it's to foil a terror plot). The biggest problem is that the ledger will reveal metadata which can fill the gaps on msging metadata.

@Hyolobrika @ilyess @dhfir Different spy orgs and regulatory agencies have different motivations, financing, and scope. They are all collecting data that's in the slightest relevant to their mission. Bringing money into the mix more than doubles the snooping. Signal has made a big effort to minimize metadata to conceal who talks to who. Bring an open ledger into the mix just shit-cans all that benefit.

@ilyess And in many cases it's pushing someone to finance a privacy offender as well, which has a secondary impact on privacy. It's a poor choice b/c of that needless dependency. It's an absurdity to say /not/ buying something one doesn't need is somehow going to "extreme lengths".

@ilyess It's not only discrimination-- it's bad security. That is, forcing someone to *compromise* their security by increasing their sensitive data & growing their attack surface is a Bad Idea™, particularly when it entails a demand that the other party proactively enter the marketplace to buy something they don't need, which will be used against them & only serve to track them.

@ilyess I think that's legally actionable @Br0m3x. In the #EU they can't refuse you healthcare nor can they force you into the marketplace (to buy a phone+svc, etc). The only case where an EU country can force you into the marketplace is to open a bank acct. They've not only violated your legal right to healthcare but also the #GDPR (the data minimization article).

@ilyess @NatCor Having a mobile phone w/out service gives a good amount of availability w/out making a huge security compromise. The phone can still use wifi & work for voip,wire,briar,tutanota etc. Since some people have mobile svc & some don't, opting for Signal marginalizes ppl who don't have mobile phone svc b/c they are excluded. So my point is that it's bad to encourage or push Signal on ppl

@NatCor @ilyess Different people have different operational requirements. If you have kids, it might be hard to avoid having mobile phone service b/c you need to always be on-call for the kids. Or maybe you need to on-call for work emergencies. But if you don't have an operational need for mobile phone service always on standby, then you may have made a bad compromise. This is just part of my point

@dhfir @ilyess @Hyolobrika It's the money that brings various feds to probe Signal, who wouldn't normally be interested or funded if the platform were purely msgs.

@Hyolobrika @ilyess @dhfir Not sure if you followed the big recent ransomware attacks on US infrastructure, but the ransom was paid and then US feds were able to follow the money and hack the recipients. The feds took the money back. Anyway, bringing cryptocurrency to a msging platform invites all kinds of unwanted attention from regulators who would happily atk msgs while they are there probing the money.

@dhfir @ilyess @Hyolobrika there's a good discussion of it here: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2021/04/wtf-signal-adds-cryptocurrency-support.html The feds are becoming diligent at tracking cryptocurrency. And if they were to hypothetically encounter a cryptocurrency where they couldn't see the ledger, they would simply cripple it by actions like banning its use, banning fiat exchanges with it, etc.

@ilyess @dhfir @sergeant #Signal creates an insideous network effect such that when someone chooses to use it, their choice isn't taking place in a vacuum. They then become an enticing incentive for other people to subscribe to mobile phone service in order to stay in touch. So Signal drives people to relax security.

@sergeant @dhfir @ilyess It makes sense that if 2 parties need to communicate, they agree to the higher security requirements of the 2 ppl. #Signal is a perverse inversion of that, whereby people are pressured to /relax/ security under the pretext of good security. That is, Signal forces users to obtain mobile phone service which has a *huge* undeniable attack surface.

@ilyess @dhfir @sergeant That electricity can be manipulated. There are people who want to reach me without crypto (out of laziness, incompetence, impatience, whatever). But I have imposed a more secure path.. one with more friction. I'll walk them through the steps if needed, but I will not allow for gmail correspondence, for example.

@ilyess Some threats vary by individual; some do not. You may not need targeted fbi surveillance in your threat model, but if mass surveillance isn't in your threat model then you're delusional. Mass surveillance is a threat to everyone & only absent from threat models of the naive. Bringing cryptocurrency onto the platform expands mass surveillance to an extreme that cannot be ignored.