Exposing the flaws in the mobile network system
291 sats \ 10 comments \ @eespn 24 Sep conspiracy
Exposing the flaws in the mobile network system
Corrupted greedy telecom employees are a key component of the problem, they sell your data, they sell access to the telecom network for a monthly payment.
Counter measures (for what is worth):
  1. Do not use SMS 2FA when possible (use 2FA apps or physical token)
  2. Use SimpleX Chat, Session app or less ideal but better than nothing Signal Messenger for voice calls and messages
  3. If you are a journalists or person of interest in a totalitarian country, use a hotspot and turn off the mobile function, use your mobile in Airplane mode with Wi-Fi on connected to the Hotspot.
Counter measures of tomorrow:
. - AI replacing the human factor in charge of sensitive information that can be sold by corrupt greedy employees.
Listen to the experts, document yourself, follow nostr:nprofile1qqsxp4fkwhc8mm5704mezrh6g35zmp7t2v338wnxhr6yf8tyj9ezj6cpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsz8mhwden5te0vf5hgcm0d9hx6ctcd9kkzmrfwd68xtn0dekxjmn9qyt8wumn8ghj7ct5d3shxtnwdaehgu3wd3skueqlphmu7
write
preview
related posts
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @watchmancbiz 27 Sep
very solid advice, yes
reply
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 25 Sep
Why not use Tox?
Free Open Source and More Decentralised and Secure than SimpleX.
reply
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @eespn OP 25 Sep
A quick query using the AI from Brave offers some light on it, not familiar with TOX, but according to this answer there is a good reason why Libertarians and Bitcoiners alike are turning into SimpleX and not TOX. (If accurate...)
Tox and SimpleX Chat are both decentralized, open-source, and end-to-end encrypted messaging platforms. While they share some similarities, they differ in their architecture, features, and design goals. Tox is a peer-to-peer (P2P) network with a focus on file sharing and group chat, whereas SimpleX Chat is a decentralized messaging protocol with a focus on user privacy and metadata protection.
Encryption Features Comparison
FeatureToxSimpleX Chat
End-to-End EncryptionYes, using AES-256 and ECIESYes, using AES-256 and Curve25519
Key ExchangePublic-key cryptography (ECDSA)Public-key cryptography (Curve25519)
Message AuthenticationHMAC-SHA256HMAC-SHA256
Perfect Forward SecrecyYesYes
Serverless ArchitectureNo, uses a central nodeYes, fully decentralized
User IDsYesNo, uses ephemeral identifiers
Pros and Cons
Tox
Pros:
Supports file sharing and group chat Decentralized network with multiple nodes Open-source and community-driven
Cons:
Central node can be a single point of failure Limited scalability compared to SimpleX Chat User IDs can be used for tracking and profiling
SimpleX Chat
Pros:
Fully decentralized with no central server Ephemeral identifiers prevent user tracking and profiling Scalable architecture with low overhead Open-source and transparent
Cons:
Limited features compared to Tox (no file sharing, no group chat) Steeper learning curve due to its unique architecture
Table
ToxSimpleX Chat
End-to-End Encryption✅✅
DecentralizationPartial (central node)Full (no central server)
User IDs✅❌
File Sharing✅✅
Group Chat✅✅
Scalability❌✅
Transparency✅✅
Open-source✅✅
Note: The table uses ✅ to indicate a feature is present and ❌ to indicate it is not.
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 25 Sep
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_instant_messaging_protocols
In the wiki comparison above Tox is described as being serverless while SimpleX is described as being reliant upon a centralised server.
In the wiki comparison Tox has all the desirable attributes (in terms of privacy and utility) while SimpleX has most but not all.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @eespn OP 25 Sep
https://simplex.chat/
I do not see Wikipedia as a serious source for anything.
Check SimpleX web site and decide by yourself, I will check TOX for sure, thanks for sharing either way, SimpleX works for me so far, if TOX is better that is a bonus
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 25 Sep
I would see Wikipedia as a more neutral source than SimpleX website.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @eespn OP 26 Sep
Wikipedia neutral? LOL!
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Solomonsatoshi 26 Sep
Wikipedia biased how?
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @eespn OP 26 Sep
Well, if you have to ask it means you have a lot of research to do, I give you a few pointers:
Here a study published by Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia:
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
Last bug not least, Wikipedia have been infiltrated at all levels , not only at ideological level but at corporate level with a massive bias to push for their donors commercial interest, I personally had to deal with that years ago, it was amusing to corroborate personally what many where already exposing.
Yet, a large amount of the population keep looking at Wikipedia as a good source of information...
It is so bad, that when I use AI language models I explicitly request the model to remove Wikipedia as a source of information...
reply on another page
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @eespn OP 25 Sep
I use SimpleX and file sharing may not be great but it works fine, the group chats as well are a feature that works fine, basically now you can create not only group chats but Channels as well as we do in Telegram
reply