{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreib3idyk64ju3dcoeges3mqh42cuvnhlgbkzw4f663nx64l4s2rz5i",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:haakkg7y3xdghcdmprxeexso/app.bsky.feed.post/3mjasvivpvhz2"
  },
  "path": "/t/pavel-durov-on-signal/37058#post_13",
  "publishedAt": "2026-04-11T21:04:26.000Z",
  "site": "https://discuss.privacyguides.net",
  "tags": [
    "United States government group chat leaks - Wikipedia",
    "https://x.com/mer__edith/status/1734320963074797917"
  ],
  "textContent": "I don’t think there is any idiot-proof solution for privacy. And when i write “idiot-proof”, i don’t mean to insult anyone, the idiot can be me or anyone at times. It’s just an expression to qualify an architecture and emphasise that whatever the tool, the weakest points of a communication between two humans are often the two humans. Even if there was a perfect setting imposed to your friends, you can never be sure they won’t just say or share what you sent to someone else, they won’t ever be drunk, they won’t ever be blackmailed etc. At some point there is a tradeoff between what you **need** to send, your trust in the recipient’s capacity and will to keep it secret, and some acceptance that when sending/sharing/saying something to someone, you don’t fully control that “something” anymore. For example, remember how the world learned about top secret US stuff despite the use of Signal: United States government group chat leaks - Wikipedia\n\nAlso, i would trust more Meredith when she says nothing unencrypted travels in the push notification than Pavel saying otherwise: https://x.com/mer__edith/status/1734320963074797917",
  "title": "Pavel Durov on Signal"
}