These proposals are only possible due to the centralized nature of current messaging services. Signal has historically opposed any efforts at federation or decentralization. I wonder whether this could be the kick in the pants to get them to reconsider that position, or if we'll have to build something decentralized without them if this passes.
Nobody uses decentralised messaging systems. Even email which was decentralized is predominantly 4-5 big companies. And moxie made some very good arguments on why email is still lacking any new features like E2E while Whatsapp can add it very quickly. Then there is matrix, and trying to use it is an exercise in frustration even for tech users (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39368561), for non tech it is a non starter. Not to mention the features people expect from their messaging apps simply won't work in decentralized messaging systems (e.g delete for all, read receipts which are symmetric).
Sure, it's possible, Tox did it already. People don't want decentralised systems because they're not convenient enough. Your average user does not know what a peer or private key is. How many Signal users even verify their contacts' fingerprints? And when operating within the confines of mobile walled gardens, you need centralisation somewhere. Somebody needs to publish an app, and the publisher will be beholden to the same laws as anyone.
Everything you wrote is currently true. That said, Signal can no longer claim to be privacy-focused if they submit to these demands, and if they refuse (as they've indicated is their plan), they'll lose a huge user segment, and the network effects that keep them dominant will weaken. Something will have to change.
Signal aims to be as secure as possible while still being usable. Under those constraints, it's doing really well, as I have friends and family who use it. In contrast, not a single person I've ever met IRL uses Matrix.
No, but making Signal decentralized won't change anything. It'll still just be banned from the app stores, and whether it uses a central server or not won't matter at all.
Centralization isn't just about the network architecture. A decentralized system wouldn't have a single organization or app whose neck can be strangled by the state or Apple/Google.
I acknowledge that the current app store gatekeeper model makes this difficult to implement or even imagine. I also acknowledge that this is difficult to reconcile with the Signal Foundation's implicit 'institutional imperative' to continue existing as a central supporting party. I understand the "ecosystem is moving" usability / anti-ossification argument for centralization; it's just that the cost of centralization, when operating under the authority of someone who opposes privacy, is privacy.
I don't understand what you want to say here.
A decentralized app will come under the same pressure from lawmakers as a centralized. Other ways of delivery have to be established for both. So in the end, you can just ignore that argument. What remains is that Signal is more popular with the average person who needs safe messaging. A fact that will remain even if this law passes.
>New Branding, Same Scanning: “Upload Moderation”
Undermines End-to-End Encryption
A statement from Meredith Whittaker, Signal President, in the context of the EU debate
End-to-end encryption is the technology we have to enable privacy in an age of unprecedented state and
corporate surveillance. And the dangerous desire to undermine it never seems to die. For decades, experts have
been clear: there is no way to both preserve the integrity of end-to-end encryption and expose encrypted
contents to surveillance. But proposals to do just this emerge repeatedly — old wine endlessly repackaged in
new bottles, aided by expensive consultancies that care more about marketing than the very serious stakes of
these issues. These embarrassing branding exercises do not, of course, sway the expert community. But too
often they work to convince non-experts that the risks of the previous plan to undermine end-to-end encryption
are not present in the shiny new proposal. This is certainly how the EU chat control debate has proceeded.
In November, the EU Parliament lit a beacon for global tech policy when it voted to exclude end-to-end
encryption from mass surveillance orders in the chat control legislation.
