Let me edit in one more relevant info:
I don’t use it, but my contacts may or may not use it.
For those who don’t know, Beeper is an app that aims to unite all your messaging apps into one. To do this, it makes use of Matrix, bridging all those services together. So far, so cool.
However, since different services often use different encryption protocols, messages between those services and Matrix have to be decrypted on Beepers’ servers, before being re-encrypted with the protocol of the recipient.
They are completely open and transparent about this (which I can very much respect), and state that chats on their servers are encrypted, so they can’t read them.
Still though, decrypting mid-transit kinda throws the whole end-to-end part out of the window.
Some might say that everyone needs to decide for themselves if that’s a problem. But the issue with that is that if you decide to use Beeper, you also decide that every person you chat with is okay with it. Not very cool in my book.
That’s where the question asking for independant audits comes in, because I certainly don’t have the expertise to look at their code. If everything is safe from attackers, then cool.
But me for example, I switched to Signal specifically for verifiable and proper End-to-End Encryption, so chatting with someone who uses Signal through Beeper kinda defeats the point.
Because, how does Beeper even get what they need to decrypt a message I send to a Beeper user?
I don’t consent to a third party decrypting my messages, simply because one of my contacts uses their service. That is fundamentally wrong in my opinion.
What are your thoughts on this?
Ok thank you so much. What I would like to point at in the difference between having an end-to-end encryption between two recipients and at-rest encryption for information owned by Signal (in this example), is the purpose of those two different things. E2E encryption means only the two agents at each end have the mathematical possibility to decrypt the info: this is privacy by design. At-rest encryption on Signal servers of different things is a security layer meant to protect users’ privacy against attackers, but Signal have the means to decrypt it, and they would do it in the normal usage of the service. This would also mean they can (and have to) transmit decrypted information to whatever agency demand them to
Thank you for the explanation, that clarifies a few things for me.
If Signal was based in the EU, and finally moved away from phone numbers as the identifier like they talked about years ago, that would be just perfect.
Not sure about decentralization though. Being centralized means they have full control over the service and can ensure that everything runs exactly as securely and privately as they want for their users. (Which is also where my rant about Matrix bridges comes in)
It also means you have to trust them not to fuck around, though as long as the project is fully open-source, that alone should hold them to their proclaimed standards.