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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
... which should be taken as a sign of Signal's technical excellence.
Just consider: if you're looking for privacy-respecting, actually secure, reviewed, audited and tested to bone tech -- short of replicating the work yourself, who's assessment can you trust? Perhaps paradoxically, you should foremost trust the unspoken opinions of criminals. Because those people are likely betting their lives and freedoms on the tech choice. Barely any other group will approach such a choice with more vigor.
So, morals aside, that a technology is being used by criminals is actually a compliment to that technology.
A number of my friends and I use it for cross-platform group chats since we have a mix of android and iOS users. It’s a convenient messaging app, the privacy is a bonus for most of them...
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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).
“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.
> 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...
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.
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.
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 ..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
Readit News
After all he bought Instagram and WhatsApp for peanuts, and copied the best features of SnapChat.
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.
Dead Comment
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.
Assuming that his threat model is "my phone number will not be leaked", signing up on signal with his personal number seems fine.
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.
Just consider: if you're looking for privacy-respecting, actually secure, reviewed, audited and tested to bone tech -- short of replicating the work yourself, who's assessment can you trust? Perhaps paradoxically, you should foremost trust the unspoken opinions of criminals. Because those people are likely betting their lives and freedoms on the tech choice. Barely any other group will approach such a choice with more vigor.
So, morals aside, that a technology is being used by criminals is actually a compliment to that technology.
I’m not totally convinced by the narrative that Mark doesn’t trust his own tools so he prefers Signal.
"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).
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.
Who is your employer? It's not mentioned in your profile...
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.
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.
(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.
He has tape over the camera of his own computer in Facebook HQ
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.
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/11/facebook-...
https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-buys-4-homes...
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.
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.
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...
>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.
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.
However when you have enough money you can afford such privileges.
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 ..
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.
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.
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)
Do you know him personally or has he done something for you? Why do you believe he is a person of integrity?
Dead Comment
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.
That is aside of the obvious problem of phone numbers being recycled for re-issue after having been abandoned for a stretch of time.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
Haha, thanks for the chuckle.
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.
Deleted Comment