Cross-platform end-to-end encryption in RCS may finally be coming to iOS, as the new iOS 26.5 beta released by Apple has end-to-end encryption support.
As much as this is a great thing for harm reduction, I can’t help but think this will make it even more difficult to convince normies to use Signal.
The thing is, they most likely don’t know about RCS so they can’t argue that RSC and normal SMS is good enough and Signal is not “necessary”.
So, it should still be easy to convince others of Signal. Also, this RSC will take a while to catch up and be adopted at large so I’m not worried about the argument for Signal weakening.
How is RCS to I message with regards to group chats and video calls? Because I could see this still being a selling point for people to move to something like Signal if they aren’t already doing those thing over WhatsApp.
Signal > iMessage > E2EE RCS > WhatsApp > Standard SMS, if you ask me.
Respectfully, this is a terrible strategy. Relying on people not knowing a fact to convince them to do something is essentially manipulation.
Instead, I would point out that while iMessage supports encryption for most messages, this isn’t verifiable, because all parties are proprietary clients.
iMessage is proprietary, but so is every RCS app (1), mainly Google Messages. So you can’t verify on either side the claimed encryption.
It’s also worth noting, that just like Whatshapp, metadata isn’t encrypted. (see iOS 26.5 rcs interop deepdive). This means in practice who you talk to, when, how often, isn’t encrypted. Ask them if they ever send colleague a 1 AM message.
(1) I don’t know many RCS app apart from Google and Apple. There was Samsung Messages, but it is slowly being shutdown. I guess there a handful of clients from India and China, but in any case none of this apps are open-source.
Yes. But given the history of iMessage and Apple, it is fair to believe that it is infact and indeed E2EE. I have no reason to believe otherwise. This belief is the same belief I have in Signal that it is compiling and releasing the app such that their encryption claims remain true and valid. We technically can’t know this for sure either but if we apply the logic you’re explaining (which is not wrong), then application of said logic won’t make sense to use any tech as I see it.
So just because something is closed course, not believing or questioning an established app/company’s security, privacy, etc. doesn’t make sense when the company has been around for a very long time and they have a good reputation. That should not be the only reason to question as you are.
In other words, the logic you’re trying to apply while generally correct, doesn’t apply here as I see it.
No, you can know it very well. Signal is reproducible on Android, and you can run your own server. You can also audit the code in the repository. You can detach the client from the server provider by using Molly. You can host an alternative server implementation too when molly server/flatline gets ready.
It’s disingenuous to compare something very very closed source and requiring explicit blessings from the overlord (RCS) to something that is so open you can write your own client and server and federate among your hosted servers while still being able to interact with the main server.
Open source projects are working very hard to make supply chains transparent and provable, binaries reproducible, and services self hostable. Apple and Google are working very hard to lock down users with threats and network effect locks. It is not even close how different the trust factor is.
This is of course not to imply that Apple and Google are undermining the encryption. The trust calculus is just very different.
How is it “disingenuous”? I as a customer/user am only comparing different pieces of software in the same product category no matter where they are from and how they are made and work.
I was very clear about why it is disingenuous. You said:
Which is disingenuous (insincere). They are not the same level of belief, and we can technically and practically know that.
You also said it’s possible on Android. Not possible elsewhere, right?
I disagree. But that’s a personal view. It’s okay if you/others don’t.
You said they operate at the same level of trust and we cannot verify signal’s claims. I said that’s objectively false. I think that is the extent of off topic I am willing to engage in. If you think I am wrong, say that. If you think of something exotic you wish to discuss, create a thread.
Earth is flat is also a personal view, but one in want of correction.
The issue I have is with how you’re calling it disingenuous. It is not that. You’re trying to claim that it is objectively so. It’s not. You thinking it is is also a personal view. I don’t see it as that, as far as the meaning of the word goes. You do.