I would like to express concern about the future of the Signal messenger. Although Signal currently has a significantly smaller audience than WhatsApp, there are existential risks associated with the messenger covering a larger number of users. Is it rational to say that the goal of this messenger is to be used by the largest number of users, so let’s assume for a moment that Signal was able to achieve its mission and most WhatsApp users switched to Signal - I know this is right now unrealistic, but even 30% of users would be an enormous, huge number. Thus, what is the future of the messenger when it starts organizing communications for 1 billion users worldwide?

Would it be rational to assume that counterintelligence forces and special police will send their agents to the organization as undercover workers to sabotage the work and embed backdoors during companies in the context of company growth and staff expansion in this scenario? The question is rhetorical.

I would like to hear the response of the company’s president to this existential threat, and to thank for their work.

  • Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafeEnglish
    121·
    2 days ago

    Do you really think government/counter agents aren’t already doing this?

    Any security agency that wasn’t aware of it before even we were, with projections of likely growth path, who else is looking at it, etc, etc, wouldn’t be a very effective security agency.

    Keep in mind that this is what I can think of off the top of my head, and I’m not an intelligence/security boffin.

    Also, capitalization, punctual, etc are a thing for a reason… If you can’t be bothered then people won’t take you seriously. Is it really that hard to press shift as needed?