Link: https://aboutsignal.com/news/signal-registration-without-a-phone-number-now-available/

Signal has started rolling out Signal Login, an optional registration method that allows users to create a Signal account without providing a phone number. The feature will be rolled out first on Android and will come to iOS later.

As we previously reported, Signal Login is not a free alternative registration method. Signal requires users who choose to register without a phone number to make a one-time payment. The price at launch is $2.99 / € 3.49, although this may vary by region and currency.

I feel $3 is more than fair as a one-time payment for this option. Good on Signal for this option.

Thats very cheap. Bit worried it wont be enough to prevent spam, guess time will tell.

Do they have any guarantee about not logging payment details?

Edit: As another comment mentioned, Signal doesn't have access to the payment details, but Google does as Play Services is required for the transaction, making the situation still problematic.

It’s currently not yet possible to buy a Signal Login account on a device that has no Play Services. Signal says they have plans to add more payment methods, but currently only offer Play Store in-app payments, which requires Play Services.

The payment uses the same zero-knowledge proofs Signal’s donation system uses, so there is no link between your payment and your Signal account.

🤔

So Google will know you paid but signal won't tie your payment creds to the account. Sill an issue but better.

Zero-knowledge proofs are interesting technology. There are some cool applications out there that utilize it well. Glad Signal is adopting it.

Ah lame. Hope they add more options, because relying on Google's platform sucks for a bunch of reasons.

Signal knows the creation time of your account.

Google knows the timestamps of every transaction made through Play Services.

Law enforcement wants to deanonymize an account and subpoenas Signal for the creation time of the account, which Signal will provide them.

Law enforcement subpoenas Google for the records of all Play Services users who paid for Signal Login at that time, plus or minus a few minutes.

Law enforcement now has a shortlist of suspects. If Signal Login is paid for by 1 million users per year (unlikely) then that's one user every 30 seconds on average. A 5 minute window of time will be a list of 10 individuals, identified by their payment details and Google account.

Still depends on Google? Into the trash bin it goes.

Hopefully they can adopt FOSS payment methods soon. I've heard good things about Taler, but am still waiting for a good reason (in terms of commerce support) to use it.

So the feature basically doesn't exist until other payment options are provided. Got it.

People using apps that store their data in silos... As fair as i know signal business model isn't sustainable. Let's see how much they'll cry when signal will start charging for basic usage.

Wow great! More google, signal is for definite not working for the people but for the govt with cool tech.

More google, signal is for definite not working for the people but for the govt with cool tech.

Could someone rephrase/translate this for me? I can't make sense of it right now. 😅

😂 My point is signal is not going forward to be decentralized, they have history of suppressing forks. Also always reuqireing phone numbers and now when they don't, they require another piece of personally identifiable information. It has mass following, lots of money and status as a best and most secure app for chat. Techniacally it is good, but the other stuff looks like they just don't wanna go decentralized way, make app more indestructible(what guarantees one day US won't just shut the door).

Sorry english is not my first language and i am dispointed in tech and pessimistic about it

They could, for the time being, do account creation in bulk perhaps at infrequent intervals. Somewhat annoying for users, but would provide at least a bit more obscurity.

One could have thought that donations would rid one of having to pay for a feature much requested. sigh

What's next, premium accounts for texts longer than 240 characters?

Having to pay shouldn't be a thing, f that shit

Interesting how Deltachat and Jabber, both decentralized encrypted messaging apps (as opposed to Signal, which is centralized), don't even require an email to create an account, let alone a phone number or payment.

Unfortunately, dishonest actors would take advantage of the fact that honest ones have provided the free infrastructure, and use it to spam. Signal can't link previous donations on a different account with a new one - and for privacy reasons, that's a good thing.

It sucks that this requires payment, but it's quite understandable.

Both of those probably also have a small fraction of the users of Signal, at least at this moment.

Privacy-wise: DeltaChat is cool but it lacks forward secrecy for now and the foreseeable future, and XMPP is a newbie-excluding mess (for example, encrypted group chats require every user to authenticate every other user)

I've looked at unsealed records provided by the Signal Foundation, and they definitely have the account creation and last accessed date... But besides that, is there really any information authorities can glean from this? Or is it simply the issue that this leaves users at square one, if they're trying to avoid connecting an identity (be it phone, or Google, which generally requires a phone) to it?

For me, I see this as a potential boon for simply having a second account without having to go through the rigmarole of maintaining an extra SIM card.

You don't want to have to use a payment method at all... the problem with not having a phone number is there is no way to tie the account to someone who is responsible for the content, and Signal does not want the liability nor the spam traffic, of potentially harmful traffic (in whatever sense that may mean).

Or if you want the tinfoil hat response... they need/want to tie your account to a real identity for surveillance purposes, and they can't do that if there is no phone number, so they use a payment record instead. (I made all that up and have no idea if it's true)

Both of those probably also have a small fraction of the users of Signal

Change has to start somewhere, just like Lemmy/Piefed has a fraction of the users of Reddit :)

DeltaChat is cool but it lacks forward secrecy for now and the foreseeable future

That may or may not be an issue depending on the threat model of the individual. Someone that suspects a state actor may be surveilling them? They'd likely want something more secure (though I personally wouldn't trust Signal in that scenario either due to their centralized nature, which makes them an easy target for state actors).

For someone just wanting a group chat with friends/family that they don't want being used for AI training or sold to ad companies to build a profile on them? Deltachat is more than secure enough, and certainly better than the corporate owned options they likely already use.

and XMPP is a newbie-excluding mess (for example, encrypted group chats require every user to authenticate every other user)

I haven't needed to authenticate anything manually in my experience in the XMPP apps I've used. I just enable OMEMO encryption in the chat I'm in, and as long as the other participants also have that option enabled, it usually just works, and they can read my messages. Its certainly worked better and more smoothly than Matrix's encrypted chats, which consistently had issues with messages not decrypting.

Change has to start somewhere

I'm trying, but nobody has messaged me yet (see my profile, I've had it there for a while!) On the bright side, I guess I've enjoyed a lack of spam or other nonsense through sheer obscurity.

For someone just wanting a group chat with friends/family that they don’t want being used for AI training or sold to ad companies to build a profile on them? Deltachat is more than secure enough, and certainly better than the corporate owned options they likely already use.

Maybe, although I would argue that if the server is a concern already (E2EE makes it one!) then forward secrecy would be necessary to prevent a single key from leaking the group chat in question. And toward secrecy is no longer a new technology thanks to Signal.

I'm hanging onto DeltaChat with the hope they implement it as soon as PGP does.

I haven’t needed to authenticate anything manually in my experience in the XMPP apps I’ve used. I just enable OMEMO encryption...

I'm unfamiliar with the current state of the ecosystem, but... That's kind of the problem with it too, right? There is no standard, and unlike even Lemmy, the mishmash leads to user-unfriendliness. Specifically I was thinking of this comment , which may not be relevant to your client:

Group chats do not have group key, but one encrypt messages for each group member (pairwise), which means that everybody has to do key exchange with everybody. This does not scale... which means that even if membership is stable, new keys may appear. Some clients (Conversations) do not allow to send message to a group when they do not know some keys of some group members/devices , which is fail situation that happen pretty often.

Regarding attracting users, somebody else noted

If you tell people "on Android you should use this app, on iOS use that app" - you lose regular people fast. If you have a feature that only exists in one app on one platform, you also really lose people.

I definitely don't want XMPP to fail, but it seems that after years, it's all too little too late. That one, I'm not holding my breath on. (DeltaChat, I am.)

Signal registration without a phone number now available in Android beta

Oh cool so it's more private now

(but payment required!)

Oh, so it's less private now, cool.

I already don't use it anymore so what do I care, back when they had SMS and Signal, people would download it "just for a protest" and delete it without disassociating their number, and then I'd go to message them but instead of defaulting to SMS because they deleted the app signal defaulted to "still has acct," but since they'd deleted the app the message gets delivered but only to like, the server I guess.

So now to text those 5 people I have to make Messenger my default, send an SMS, they don't respond immediately so I switch back to Signal as default, then they reply so I have to switch my default back to Messenger to reply, and so on. Sure, now that is probably fixed with them dropping SMS support, maybe, but I'm already using Delta Chat since it took them SIX FUCKING YEARS to solve that and I wasn't going to wait, so, sucks to suck I guess.

The main problem with XMPP (well for me anyway) is that the implementation of OMEMO that 99% of the apps use is woefully out of date, and Conversations (and their ilk) seem to actively resist updating because unless EVERYONE does it at the same time it will break interoperability.

The second problem for me is the ease of use, I'd have to physically set up accts for literally all my contacts on Jabber (everyone I know is stupid [it's really just learned helplessness and it pisses me off to no end]), but on Delta I can legit say "here, click link" and it'll bring up their app store on DC, then they DL and make an acct and then I say "click the link again" and they're directly connected to me, done. So much easier. And then next time I see them I can say "hey give me your phone I'm gonna do stuff to your Delta acct" and I can add relays and create a backup for them, but at least we can get started easier.

Besides, they are working on forward secrecy afaik, and they're one of the only teams making these apps that seems to acknowledge metadata's existence, honestly they seem like one of the best options all things considered. Sure if your threat model is the US gov then maybe not, but better not use Intel or AMD or any android (incl Graphene, and I'm a user myself) or iphone then. Carrier pigeons maybe.

Understandable 😁, and no worries!

SimpleX is more private anyways IMO

How else would you solve the spam/bot problem on a system that already has > 100 million users?

The main problem with XMPP (well for me anyway) is that the implementation of OMEMO that 99% of the apps use is woefully out of date

The whole 'OMEMO is out of date' thing started with Soatok's blog, however what is less known is that blogger removed chose to block/not approve a response in the comments from an OMEMO developer who clarified some things (you can it read here), which personally I think was rather odd/bad faith of them to do.

According to that response, there's nothing really wrong with the older OMEMO 0.3.0, as the developer considers it a stable standard that clients can safely implement, while the newer versions are basically public beta releases that are working toward a stable 'OMEMO 2' standard that can eventually replace 0.3.0, and be stable enough for all XMPP apps to implement at once, hence why most apps are remaining on the older version.

I absolutely agree that Deltachat has by far a smoother onboarding process compared to XMPP, and I think for most people, Delta is probably the better option.

Where XMPP shines is if someone needs access to more discord-like features, which is where the the Movim XMPP client (a web app that works across all platforms, Desktop and Mobile) does well, as it was able to use XMPP to have Discord-like servers with text and group voice chat rooms, as well as screensharing. It works quite well for the most part. There is still definitely some UX oddities in Movim that can add some friction, but the dev is quite open to suggestions for improvements, and it's come a long way in recent months (the discord-like features for example were added just this year).

I agree that XMPP has some UX problems that some clients have yet to solve, and that is one area where Deltachat is very much ahead.

If you tell people “on Android you should use this app, on iOS use that app” - you lose regular people fast. If you have a feature that only exists in one app on one platform, you also really lose people.

A good solution to this issue would be to exclusively recommend the Movim client.

Due to it being a web app, it's compatible across all platforms (any desktop or mobile device regardless of OS), and is the only client that has so far successfully implemented a slew of advanced features that Deltachat does not have, such as Discord-like channels with text and group voice chat rooms, as well as screensharing with audio (I think only on Chromium based browsers so far, as it's still quite a new feature).

It still has some UX issues it needs to work on that will cause some friction with normies compared to Deltachat (a big one is that notifications don't work reliably on mobile yet), but the dev is very open to suggestions of how to improve it, and is very active in developing it (the discord-like features were all implemented just a few months ago). I think it may give XMPP a fighting chance for the future.

But is it more sustainable?

I love SimpleX I was really early on to test it and it improved over the years but running a messenger is heavy even if decentralized, especially when you have to do all the R&D because you work like nothing else.

Wish I could pay in Monero... or at least Bitcoin, even over the Lightning Network.

alright instead of giving them my phone number i'll give them my credit card number

Or if you want the tinfoil hat response... they need/want to tie your account to a real identity for surveillance purposes, and they can't do that if there is no phone number, so they use a payment record instead.

They're using zero-knowledge proofs for the payments so they can't link the account to the credit card used to pay it.

So for many years, people wanted to use Signal without a phone, a geotracking device, by just registering on Desktop.

But it's impossible: it must be linked to a phone AND phone number.

After years and years of asking, people can now register with... a credit card?!?

This is a honeypot. Only a honeypot would behave this way and avoid things like Monero, desktop only registration, etc.

I am not sure how the honeypot works, but if it weren't a honeypot they would be behaving differently.

If it's "free" with a phone number and costs money to use another method (which is another form of PII) then the only explanation I can see is that having your phone number is worth at least $3 more to Signal than having your credit card number.
Or maybe the fact that children can have a phone number but not a credit card and having information on kids is worth more to them.

I used it for a while and even got some friends to use it but since they all used whatsapp already they drifted back to that.

Good to know, thanks!

Zero-knowledge proofs as a concept sound sus to me. How do you prove that you don't know something? The fact of being tested already means you know of it. What's a good writeup n how Signal does it? And how can a user of Signal test or certify it?

Forward secrecy protects against intercepting now and decrypting later when you get access to the users private key: this is only possible on delta chat if you get access to the client database at which point you can read all undeleted messages anyway. (On Signal even deleted messages!)

Just don’t allow easily guessable identifiers

Or the server(s), no? It's trivially easy to archive, filter by account, and then decrypt if the one key has been found

however what is less known is that blogger removed a response in the comments from an OMEMO developer who clarified some things (you can it read here), which personally I think was rather odd/bad faith of them to do.

My blog hasn't had comments enabled for years. People can write their own blog posts if they want to respond to something. Not becoming a dumping ground for other people isn't "bad faith".

Furthermore, I didn't remove a response. I've always held comments in a moderation queue back when I did allow them, and I didn't approve it. That's all.

The reason for the moderation queue is obvious to most people, but if you find yourself unaware: Being openly queer, or part of the furry community, or both opens you up to a lot of harassment networks that try to cause grief. They might dox you and post this in a blog comment so it shows up on search engines, for example. So I never wanted to deal with that retroactively.

Could you elaborate how their response would be making your comment section a 'dumping ground'? Was it not directly relevant to your issues with XMPP and OMEMO?

I’ve always held comments in a moderation queue back when I did allow them, and I didn’t approve it. That’s all.

What was your reasoning for not approving it?

Could you elaborate how was their response would be making your comment section a ‘dumping ground’?

My blog exists for me to publish my writing. If other people want their own writing published, they should publish it on their own blog. "Mopar" clearly was capable of doing so.

Was it not directly relevant to your issues with XMPP and OMEMO?

Does relevance matter? If so, why?

What was your reasoning for not approving it?

What is your reasoning for thinking I owe you or anyone an explanation? My blog, my rules.

You aren't giving them your CC#. You're giving it to Google. Which, presumably, already has it.

No no no.

The $3 is to incur a cost on would-be spammers. I don't think most Fedi users appreciate how much work goes into combatting spam at scale. Signal has hundreds of millions of users. Requiring a phone number limits the blast radius of successful spam campaigns. Removing that requirement means making it much easier for spammers to register.

Does relevance matter? If so, why?

I guess I'm trying to understand what about the OMEMO developer's comment made you not want to approve it in comparison to the 19 other comments you did approve.

What is your reasoning for thinking I owe you or anyone an explanation?

You don't owe anyone anything, I'm just trying to make sense of why you would choose to not publish that comment.

Based on the information I have at hand, it seemed like you wrote some strong opinions about the bad qualities of XMPP, and then opted to not approve a comment with information that may have made your opinions seem less strong? Without further insight into why you didn't want that comment seen on your blog, I personally can't come up with a different explanation that fits. 🤷

It's not your or anyone else's place to "understand" arbitrary decisions I made years ago. Whatever point you want to emphasize is moot anyway: Comments are disabled and users are encouraged to blog independently if they want to remark on something I wrote.

Consider yourself corrected on the "removed" remark.