Good to be aware of this however this on its own is not a reason to either use or not use Signal IMO. Encryption either works or doesn't. Open source and reproducible builds either work or don't. They don't care about anyone's politics.
The US state department has funded many projects that are good for freedom regardless of their motives.
But, with all that said we should be very careful with stuff like this. I would argue that using software just because it does or does not have people on the board we don't like is pretty low IQ. Some of these small projects could easily be used to entrap people. We need to be smart and realize where to focus attention.
I've seen a lot of FUD around Signal for the last year with no evidence of actual issues with the software or service. All around associations. One might wonder why that is? Maybe they don't want people using Signal because its to good?
I've also watched CEO's leadership stand up to politicians seeking backdoors. Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying we should trust them. The opposite. We shouldn't trust other projects because they don't have shady people involved.
Don't trust, verify.
That’s it, there are some components in the stack and organisation which we can’t verify.
reply
Yes. I don't see much talk about specifics in these discussions. Usually just blanket statements that really aren't very helpful. Don't get me wrong. I think highlighting the people on the board and their affiliations is needed. Its just not enough.
reply
I want to add one thing.
No one should use Signal if you aren't comfortable with it. My point is to think about why that is. You likely use MANY things each day build/maintained/managed by people that have different motives and beliefs from you. Don't kid yourself.
Do your own research. Social signals matter but in the end the code and architecture trump everything. True for bitcoin and encryption.
reply