Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | pyb's commentslogin

Those worries are ruled out... for now. Laws can be amended.

Then never go anywhere because eventually there might be a law there you disagree with. This is such a stupid argument.

Same here, I've not been able to open an account, it's a bit frustrating.


It's the 2026 version of this https://paulgraham.com/submarine.html


Reminded of Dan Luu's post on the Normalization of Deviance (2015, https://danluu.com/wat/)

"There's the company with a reputation for having great engineering practices that had 2 9s of reliability last time I checked..."

Now it's 2026, and customers are grudgingly accepting zero 9's of reliability.


How could Signal be considered privacy-conscious ? The first thing they do is ask for your phone number.


Signal has profiles nowadays that can be used to connect with people without sharing phone numbers. The latter are only used for signup and discarded immediately after.


I don't know how Signal works and I never used it, but could I signup with a phone number and keep using it with another number, on the same phone?


Yes. The phone number is just for activation, once activated, you can swap the SIM and carry on. Or have the SIM that receives the activation text in another phone, or be virtual, or whatever.


Another comment contradicted this.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46959019


I doubt they are discarded when push notifications exist


push notifications are not related to phone number, but rather to a randomly generated token in app.


WhatsApp sends a copy of all your messages to ICE. Signal doesn't.


Source?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XKeyscore

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(intelligence_o...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/uk/nsa-staff-used-spy-...

Millennials and older generations witnessed this happening bit by bit, some of us tried to fight it, but ultimately it’s everywhere now, and apparently it’s been so ubiquitous for so long that people aren’t even aware of it anymore.


I am the person who asked for the source.

1) I do not believe for a second that Meta would actually implement something that would remove their own ability to read those messages.

2) We do not have any proof that their claimed e2e chat service is actually compromised.

The matter of fact tone of the parent made me think there was some actual proof or at least something more than speculation. That's why I asked for a source.


I am not sure I understand what you’re saying.

If meta can read those messages, then they’re most definitely not e2e encrypted.

Given the historical record, you would be a fool to assume that any service run by a public company isn’t fully tapped by US intelligence agencies. They’ve been tapping anything and everything they can get their hands on, why stop at whatsapp?

Let me flip it around: what proof do you actually have that it is e2e encrypted? Zuckerberg pinky promised?


You didn't actually flip it around at all.

They're stating they doubt Meta would ever allow full e2ee, which is not evidence but simply speculation.

AND

They asked for a source/evidence to prove their hunch is more than speculative.


What standard of proof is required here? It’s not criminal court.

The original post I replied to simply asked for proof, without also stating they doubt meta would ever allow e2ee.

My post is more directed at other readers who might take the absence of a smoking gun as an assumption of safety.


Not a single link has anything on OPs claim.


You’re right, so that must mean whatsapp is totally safe, right?


Both can be untrue...


whatsapp is facebook; do you need any other "source"?

i'd be surprised if they didn't have straight out government logins...


Of course I need another source. I think you're right too but this is just speculation. I thought you had access to some actual information.


They're getting sued for it.


> They’re getting sued for it

If this is the case you’re referring to, then I don’t know that it is proof of your assertion, in fact maybe the opposite: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/31/us-author...


Anyone can sue anyone for anything. I have no doubt the US government has access to whatever data it wants from all businesses, but a lawsuit is not evidence of anything.


because privacy != anonymity e.g you have privacy in your home but everbody still knows you live there.


Give Signal a burner phone.


No they don't.

They ask _for_ a phone number. It doesn't have to be yours.


Because they have an huge PR campaign and a lot of money to invest in keeping their place.


Interesting to see the deep-dive on "younger car drivers", but not a pip about the old-age drivers. Yet we see from chart 1 that their casualty rate is far worse!


Not for me.


If it's confirmed that Altman's played the Koreans against each other, it's going to cause a furore in Korea.


I get the feeling that they are doing this partly for marketing purposes.


The aerospace industry has had countermeasures in place against bit-flips for a long time, oftentimes thanks to redudancy

Airbus/Thales's fix in this case appears to add more error checking, and to restart the misbehaving component. https://bea.aero/fileadmin/user_upload/BEA2024-0404-BEA2025-...

("une supervision interne du composant à l’origine de la défaillance ; - un mécanisme de redémarrage automatique de ce composant dès lors que la défaillance est détectée)


The linked document is not related to this incident.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: