Comment by freeqaz
1 day ago
That's why it's important to use apps like Signal where you can set the retention of your messages. I've got everybody I know using it now!
1 day ago
That's why it's important to use apps like Signal where you can set the retention of your messages. I've got everybody I know using it now!
Setting a retention time out is playing with fire. If the police get ahold of the other party's device, and present an exhibit which they say contains the true conversation, you could be worse off than if you retained the conversation. The fact that you have since deleted it could be incriminating.
In some jurisdiction, yes, legally, such evidence might not be probative, but you might still convicted because of it.
message retention has literally NEVER been used as incrimination in a court of law. So you are wrong.
Umm, isn’t this related? https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/26/24141801/ftc-amazon-antit...
4 replies →
Ephemeral messaging is not a crime.
The retention time can be set by individual conversation not just the whole app.
Given historical backups are the norm here, retention only does so much.
Really, apps should encrypt their own storage with keys that aren't stored in the backups. That's how you get security/privacy back.
> That's how you get security/privacy back.
Nothing an app does on a device guarantees you security or privacy if you don't trust or fully control the device.
Yes, but they'd have to issue another one of these snooping demands to either the app's developer (there's loads of developers so this would get out of hand quickly) or to Apple to patch the build or read the memory or something to get the unencrypted data
This current demand isn't blanket access to your device, it's access to things uploaded to Apple's online storage service. Having to get a backdoor that works with every app's encryption takes a lot more work while running the data through an authenticated encryption algorithm is relatively trivial for a developer
Many people want control over whether they back up conversations with others, and think it would be crazy for sender to control the retention policy instead of receiver.
I think sender should just be able to send a recommended preference hint on retention and you could have an option to respect it or not.
In a world where they cancel encryption they can't access... doesn't Signal and its CIA funded origins concern you?
Nope. I actually think that would bring more scrutiny and so I feel safer knowing it's not be cracked.
interesting and illogical reply
3 replies →
I use a patched Signal client that disables retention deletion and remote delete messages.
and that's awfully rude of you, but if you were concerned about message retention you wouldn't do that. so what's your point?