“It was not intentional”

Just couldn’t bring himself to go quite all the way to the truth.

I myself said “Signal is actually good”, so there’s no need to argue with me about it.

Nevertheless:

I actually view Signal’s contact discoverability as a feature, not a security flaw

Of course it can be both. Many things are both features in one domain, and flaws in another domain. Obviously it’s a feature or else they wouldn’t have purposely developed it.

list some of these alternatives

Probably the ones you’re already thinking of (SimpleX, Session, XMPP).

how they are better?

They’re better in terms of privacy. When I said they’re better, I mean specifically in terms of privacy.

Of course they’re less convenient, as you’re alluding to.

AFAIK the client slurps up your contacts, but the E2E encryption ensures that the Signal server cannot actually see those.

Signal does have your phone number, which is a problem.

On the other hand, the only information linked to that phone number is, “the person with this phone number uses signal”. AFAIK your phone number is not linked to your contacts, your message content, etc.

So in practice, the fact that Signal has your phone number is probably only a problem insofar as you don’t want anybody to know that you use Signal.

But to be fair, why have that issue if you don’t have to. Signal is actually good, still, but there are even better alternatives.

I can’t diagnose them obviously, but they could potentially have a personality disorder like anti-social personality disorder (ie sociopathy or psycopathy) or narcisistic personality disorder. If they literally can’t experience empathy for others or see outside of their perspective, it might be a condition like that.

If they are capable of empathy and compassion but choose to reject it, you could call them “amoral”, or a “moral nihilist”.

OR, we can just use a distro like Artix that doesn’t comply with the law.

But actually I have a real answer to that question! In that scenario, I would… use a distro like Artix that chooses not to comply with that law 🤘

By all of your responses so far, I assume you would just be okay with computer and OS manufacturs obeying?

Correct me if I’m wrong, by this rhetorical question you’re saying “It’s unrealistic to think that the laws will change, or that websites will break the current laws”. Is that right?

What about the websites that will store it anyway, despite it being illegal? And what about if the laws change?

Wow sounds like they should only return an age bracket to mitigate most of those risks.

Isn’t it even better just to take nothing related to your age at all?

…the problem…

But there isn’t “the problem”; there are multiple problems. Isn’t it good to have fewer problems?

…if your system is compromised…

Also it’s not just your system getting compromised that could be an issue. Say you put your age or age bracket in. Then some application or website retreives that, and stores it on their end, mapped to your user id or email or whatever. Then that system gets compromised. Even if your personal computer is perfectly safe and sound, they still got it.

I think there’s some confusion here about the concept of “identification”.

A date of birth is generally considered identifying information because it can be used to implicate other information about your real-life self, and it can have real-life consequences for you if it is known. It discrimantes and differentiates you from other individuals in ways that have real-life implications.

What does a password identify about you? Well it verifies that you are “the same person who set the password on the OS”.

So to compare and contrast, A DOB identifies you as…

• a person who may not be allowed to install certain programs or access certain information/content, based on age
• a person in a demographic who may be amenable to certain advertisements
• (if your system is compromised/leaked and age retrieved) someone who may be desireable by predators
• (in the context of investigation or stalking) someone who is not a specific other individual (ie it narrows you down from a pool of individuals)

Having entered a password identifies you as…

• the same person who set up the OS
• ??? - feel free to let me know if you’ve got anything here.

To consider the act of entering a password as an “identity” is pretty bizarre, and frankly the notion seems contrived just to be argumentative.

In fact Arch and Artix do not require you to make a password to install the OS (even though you probably should).

But making a password doesn’t identify you or verify anything about you, anyway.

And regardless, say you do create a password at installation (as you should). The next time you type it in, that’s really you verifying yourself.