Signal network is centralized, and they are too small of a player to need to open it up themselves.
Comment on To comply with DMA, WhatsApp and Messenger will become interoperable via Signal protocol
DahGangalang@infosec.pub 9 months ago
Sounds like ~facebook~ Meta isn’t seriously considering interoperation with the existing Signal network, which is a weight off my chest.
BrikoX@lemmy.zip 9 months ago
DahGangalang@infosec.pub 9 months ago
Right, but with Signal being an open source project, it seems that anyone could (pending license-ability) build an app to interact with the main Signal network. It’s my understanding there’s a few apps on F-Droid that let you do that already.
Thus, Facebook should be able to (at least in theory) build compatibility for the Signal network into their existing messengers.
Is there any part of that I’m missing?
BrikoX@lemmy.zip 9 months ago
The actual DMA compliance needs to be between WhatsApp network and Messenger network. The method is up to them to figure out, and they have chosen Signal protocol. To work with the actual Signal network, those users would have to register on Signal and Meta porting all the data to Signal (with Signal agreement), which would essentially be them switching service instead of being interoperable.
3rd party Signal apps use the same network, so to use it you have to have an account on Signal network. Like I said, it’s a centralized server, so the Signal stores all the data of the users even if they use 3rd party clients. Same way WhatsApp and Messenger stores user data on their end.
DahGangalang@infosec.pub 9 months ago
I suppose the part I seem to be missing: what’s to stop Facebook from setting up a “Signal Server” that then hosts those users on Whatsapp/Messenger?
From there, what happens if Facebook then attempt to integrate those servers into the existing Signal network?
I’m really not sure how information is shared between servers on Signal and am curious if there’s not something at a purely technical level to stop that from happening. I’d imagine there’s some keys that need to be passed around for handling en/decryption which I think is what you’re alluding to, but I want to be clear that that’s what you mean.
CameronDev@programming.dev 9 months ago
I’d kinda prefer if they did interop with the signal network, because then i can get off messenger entirely. Messenger is already signal protocol, i dont see any problem there.
What are you concerned about?
DahGangalang@infosec.pub 9 months ago
I’m forgetting the term everyone was throwing around when (Facebook’s) Threads was supposedly going to federate. But the gist of it was that this is an old Big Tech move: small community is created and thrives, big company integrates into the ecosystem, then a couple of years later the big tech company controls that that whole ecosystem.
If Facebook were to completely integrate, I worry they would begin to bring in additional features (maybe like blue chat bubbles for FB users, or bringing back SMS in the app; some feature that you’d only be getting on the FB version of the ecosystem) and use that to begin to strong arm the ecosystem under their control.
There’s probably a Slippery Slope Fallacy in there, but my good will towards Big Tech is minimal after the last decade or so.
CameronDev@programming.dev 9 months ago
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? Google tried to do that to XMPP with hangouts, and it didnt kill XMPP? So I think signal would be fine, and worst case would just break compatibility later. And at least with this new EU law, attempting to extinguish would be met with some level of fines?
Valid concern though.
DahGangalang@infosec.pub 9 months ago
Yeah, that’d be the principle.
I’m really not sure how this is all gonna pan out, but I know you’re gonna need to offer me something really good to abandon “real” Signal. Not sure if that’s how the rest of the community feels, but I know that’s NOT the way “normal people” feel. If my sentiment is widely shared, maybe it does have hope in the end.