59
votes
Signal messenger releases 'usernames' so you no longer need to tell someone your phone number in order for them to message you
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Keep your phone number private with Signal usernames
- Word count
- 1629 words
I put 'usernames' in quotes because this doesn't function like a username on other platforms. It doesn't prevent you from needing a phone number to sign up, and your username is not permanently attached to your account.
The username feature just functions as a lookup id for other users to initiate a chat with you instead of using your phone number. Once a chat has started, the username plays no role at all.
Once a chat has started, does the other user then know your phone number ?
As I understand for the blog post, no, they can't see your number if you don't want them to.
This is literally answered four sentences into the blog post.
Those who are asking that Signal should have completely ditched phone number, they never planned on it. Phone number keeps the spammer away and bring some legitimacy to it. I am completely happy with this change, because it extends our privacy and safeguards their interest too.
Yup. It costs little for a spammer to buy registration-free starter SIM cards... but it does cost. And it adds up.
Ugh, finally.
I wish they'd gone farther and not required a phone number at all. I want as few things as possible tied to my phone. But not having to give it out to people is a huge step in the right direction.
They probably never will.
Phone numbers serve two important purposes on Signal: they offer simple user discovery in exactly the way the average user expects (install Signal, Signal shows you who in your address book can be messaged on Signal) and phone numbers limit spam on the platform.
If they would have gotten rid of phone numbers some years ago, I believe they would have 90% less users than they have today. It's hard to overestimate how important easy user discovery is for the average user.
I'm aware of their reasons. I don't have to like them.
From another perspective, it's kind of creepy that people automatically know I use Signal. I don't want discovery to be that easy. In a less well-liked app, we'd call that a dark pattern ("it looks like you're trying to send an SMS message to someone with a Facebook account, wouldn't you like to use Facebook Messenger instead?")
The blog post addresses specifically that! You will soon be able to turn that off
Sounds like the username feature works similarly to how they work in Telegram but more private? You still sign up with a phone number but you can set (and later change) your username to make it easier for people to find and chat w you or add you to a group chat. That being said, there are some privacy oriented features here like the fact that there’s no directory to be able to search for people. I think this is a welcome change, gives you another way to keep your phone number private.
I was really hoping this would be a move away from requiring a phone number, and by extension a phone, to use signal.
I think when they first announced that they were going to be adding usernames they said that they wouldn't get rid of the phone number requirement. Unfortunately, having a real phone number is still one of the only ways to reliably filter out spammers. Other services that require only an email to sign up or nothing at all get overrun with spammers.
If the barrier to entry is simply the associated cost, they could let users to opt to pay a small fee instead of using a phone number.
I hadn't read deeply into the original announcement to know one way or the other, but I am not currently a Signal user so I didn't see a bug hurry. For me, it's less the phone number and more the phone requirement that kills it for me (though I like neither). I do 95% of my messaging from my PC and I do not want it installed on my phone. Telegram allows this, as do most other services, but not signal. It's the only reason I kept around Google Voice for so many years as it allowed me full SMS functionality from my PC.
I'm not sure if you're aware but you could sign up for signal using your google voice number and use only the PC app for it.
I was aware, but from my understanding, it can get dicey trying to use it without an actual phone with the app installed after the initial linking. From what I was told, the desktop app will unlink after a period of inactivity and the linking can only be done through the phone app. It was just far more hassle that I was willing to go for them since I know a small handful of people that would even consider using Signal (I'd have to push it on everyone), and I'd still have to give them my phone number. I suppose I could try to get a second GV/voip number for it, but it just wasn't worth it.
I refuse to believe that it isn't possible to make a secure messaging system that doesn't require a phone or phone number.
For now I just have a matrix server set up that I share access to friends inclined to try out a new system.
I was debating whether or not to post this in the thread, but I guess I may as well, the post can always be ignored if it isn't helpful.
The Simplex.chat messenger uses neither usernames nor phone numbers nor any persistent (human-readable) identifiers. That's the upside. The price you pay is that it isn't as convenient to use, because you need to invite every person you want to chat with with a QR-Code or Hyperlink. It also seems to mostly be a one-man show instead of having the backing of a corporation, so the bus factor is quite low.
I quite like how they actually deliver the encrypted messages: You send it to one or more random public relay servers, and only the recipient knows which one(s) to query and can then decrypt the message, but because it is somewhat difficult to use, nobody I know was willing to give it a try...
That sounds worth checking out, thanks!
P.S. I think you mean the bus factor is high unless I and people I've heard use that phrase have all been saying it wrong.