How is location expensive to encrypt? I share my location all the time but to do that I have to write an entire sentence to other people where I am. Just introduce a new message type (like with edits) frontend to enable location sharing. Location is sent every 5min or if the other person requests an update, than location is updated again (send location update request message to trigger response on the other side). Same encryption as everything else and easy to implement. Of course the devil is in the detail but the basis are trivial.
The “hardest” part would be to show the location on a map without leaking data but just add a warning dialog and open externally. Every link in Signal you press has the same privacy issues.
The amount of data is a joke for location “streaming”. There is no need to update the location every second, most people on earth don’t travel with rockets. Updating the location at most every 30 seconds is probably more than enough for most usecases. Let’s make it 15s. Let’s be generous and just use two 32bit floats (could probably get away with 16bit half precision or fixed point). The size of the entire message (without meta data and encryption) is just 8 bytes. There are emojis that need more than that. And in practice people that can’t share their location often just end up sending images, so the amount of data is definitely not the issue with location sharing. A single image you send on Signal uses more data than streaming the location ever 15s for a few days.
The purpose of an app like Signal is specifically to be able to share stuff with people.
What makes it private is that you are in full control over who can see what you send. You’re arguing that for something to be private it must prevent you from sending what you want to send.
Yeah you’re right, with your viewpoint I can see the hole in my almost cyclic logic, so I appreciate your take on things.
I’m not too bothered about what is being sent with user consent - another user made a facetious comment about sending SSNs which is fair enough, if that’s what someone wants to send then wire in - but I think the key worry for me is the constant sending of identifiable and locatable data, something a little more than a single instance of encypted data sent at a user request, but the idea of a stream of data broadcast in the background which doesn’t sit right with me.
That said, I’m not overly arsed either way, it’s not a deal-breaker for me and it was a useful feature when I was a WhatsApp user when on holiday with family and friends.
I’m not too bothered about what is being sent with user consent
For an app to be private, it shouldn’t be about “consent”, but it should be about “demand”. Send something only if the user demands it, not if they agreed to it. This goes with the principle of least surprise and the idea that the app should only act for the interest of the user.
the constant sending of identifiable and locatable data
Have you ever used such feature? I don’t think you understand what is being asked. We’re not talking about constant background location sharing (like I think snapchat is doing). We are talking about live location sharing with a contact or a group, for a limited period of time.
Here how it works in Facebook Messenger. The location is shared explicitly with a specific group of people for a limited time period, and the UI should make it pretty hard to forget, and deactivate automatically after a certain time.
But it already has the ability to share your location, or am I missing what you’re requesting? Right now if you go into a chat, click the + sign, there’s an option to share your location.
if we assume location sharing = latitude + longitude + unix timestamp + a ~10 minute update interval + sane defaults [0], it shouldn’t be too straining of a resource. At least I don’t imaging it would be. It’s basically the “data” required to store the following as a message, “48.858370,2.294481,1707360628” with maybe a special header that indicates it’s location sharing data. We’re talking less than 340 kilobytes to store/process 10,000 messages. Even if it updated every minute, you’re only sending 1,440 “location sharing” messages per day IF you’ve even set it to share updates for 24 hours.
Scale this to millions of people and it’s just a blip in the radar, considering its not enabled by default, turns off after some time. Heck, they could even have the client only send updates if your location has changed significantly. If you’re sharing location but your position hasn’t changed since last message sent, it could increase the time before it sends an update to further minimize the impact. Just my 2 cents.
I do agree its probably pretty low on their to-do list. Would be nice to have tho. Monthly donor here too, super happy with the app.
[0] With the assumption that it can only be enabled with some timer to auto-disable.
Now do location sharing…
I’m torn on it. I love that everything is geared towards privacy, but location sharing seems to go against the grain of the program’s principles.
I’d make use of it if it was included, but I understand why it doesn’t and Google Maps does a similar thing.
Location showing only goes against privacy If it’s not done right.
It’s expensive to encrypt it and forward it through the servers or proxies, but revealing if done peer to peer. (And less reliable)
But by the time I’m giving “live location” I don’t think my ip address is THAT private 😝
How is location expensive to encrypt? I share my location all the time but to do that I have to write an entire sentence to other people where I am. Just introduce a new message type (like with edits) frontend to enable location sharing. Location is sent every 5min or if the other person requests an update, than location is updated again (send location update request message to trigger response on the other side). Same encryption as everything else and easy to implement. Of course the devil is in the detail but the basis are trivial.
The “hardest” part would be to show the location on a map without leaking data but just add a warning dialog and open externally. Every link in Signal you press has the same privacy issues.
Encryption isn’t hard, the service to stream live data over an hour is what costs money.
Continuous data
It’s peanuts compared to video calls, which signal already supports.
Fair enough
It’s not continuous, and it’s not much data. It’s GPS coordinates once every five minutes and when it’s requested.
When you’re looking at the map, it’s continuous.
And it doesn’t sound like a lot of data until you compare it to text messages that are 2kb a couple times per day
The amount of data is a joke for location “streaming”. There is no need to update the location every second, most people on earth don’t travel with rockets. Updating the location at most every 30 seconds is probably more than enough for most usecases. Let’s make it 15s. Let’s be generous and just use two 32bit floats (could probably get away with 16bit half precision or fixed point). The size of the entire message (without meta data and encryption) is just 8 bytes. There are emojis that need more than that. And in practice people that can’t share their location often just end up sending images, so the amount of data is definitely not the issue with location sharing. A single image you send on Signal uses more data than streaming the location ever 15s for a few days.
Fair enough
See my comment here for the amount of data it would take to share updates for 24 hours, it’s almost nothing:
https://lemmy.ml/comment/8085552
It’s very useful when coordinating with people, meeting them, etc
Oh I totally get why it’s useful, but it seems sharing more than intended goes against the privacy-focussed principle of the app.
Though I do now see that if done correctly, it could be a bonus.
The purpose of an app like Signal is specifically to be able to share stuff with people.
What makes it private is that you are in full control over who can see what you send. You’re arguing that for something to be private it must prevent you from sending what you want to send.
Yeah you’re right, with your viewpoint I can see the hole in my almost cyclic logic, so I appreciate your take on things.
I’m not too bothered about what is being sent with user consent - another user made a facetious comment about sending SSNs which is fair enough, if that’s what someone wants to send then wire in - but I think the key worry for me is the constant sending of identifiable and locatable data, something a little more than a single instance of encypted data sent at a user request, but the idea of a stream of data broadcast in the background which doesn’t sit right with me.
That said, I’m not overly arsed either way, it’s not a deal-breaker for me and it was a useful feature when I was a WhatsApp user when on holiday with family and friends.
For an app to be private, it shouldn’t be about “consent”, but it should be about “demand”. Send something only if the user demands it, not if they agreed to it. This goes with the principle of least surprise and the idea that the app should only act for the interest of the user.
Have you ever used such feature? I don’t think you understand what is being asked. We’re not talking about constant background location sharing (like I think snapchat is doing). We are talking about live location sharing with a contact or a group, for a limited period of time.
Here how it works in Facebook Messenger. The location is shared explicitly with a specific group of people for a limited time period, and the UI should make it pretty hard to forget, and deactivate automatically after a certain time.
But if I specifically want to share my position, live, I’m absolutely not sharing more than intended.
I mean I can type out my social security number in Signal but sending text doesn’t go against Signal’s principles
But it already has the ability to share your location, or am I missing what you’re requesting? Right now if you go into a chat, click the + sign, there’s an option to share your location.
That just sends a screenshot on a map and a Google maps link. What we want is realtime location sharing
I’ve been hoping for it for a while. I really need to use it from time to time. Now I have to use WhatsApp or Messenger for it which is just bleugh.
Given how much normal messaging already costs them, i don’t think this is in their budget. And i say that as a monthly donator.
So even if they introduce it, it would probably have to be behind some paywall.
if we assume location sharing = latitude + longitude + unix timestamp + a ~10 minute update interval + sane defaults [0], it shouldn’t be too straining of a resource. At least I don’t imaging it would be. It’s basically the “data” required to store the following as a message, “48.858370,2.294481,1707360628” with maybe a special header that indicates it’s location sharing data. We’re talking less than 340 kilobytes to store/process 10,000 messages. Even if it updated every minute, you’re only sending 1,440 “location sharing” messages per day IF you’ve even set it to share updates for 24 hours.
Scale this to millions of people and it’s just a blip in the radar, considering its not enabled by default, turns off after some time. Heck, they could even have the client only send updates if your location has changed significantly. If you’re sharing location but your position hasn’t changed since last message sent, it could increase the time before it sends an update to further minimize the impact. Just my 2 cents.
I do agree its probably pretty low on their to-do list. Would be nice to have tho. Monthly donor here too, super happy with the app.
[0] With the assumption that it can only be enabled with some timer to auto-disable.