Yes, you can use Signal without sharing your personal phone number. Here’s how I did it.
You must log in or register to comment.
Why not just pay for a sim card in cash? Even if your phone number gets exposed it shouldn’t be tied to your identity
What about buying the cheapest SIM card in a convenience store and activate the service with it using a dumb phone?
Usually those numbers fall back into the provider’s pool after a time of not regular usage and get sold again, at least here in Europe.
The twist they’ve introduced in this article is they’re using the registration lock feature, which means you have a signal pin enabled, so as long as the account doesn’t go idle for 7 days even somebody who gets the phone number can’t use signal.
7 days?!? Jesus can we get at least a few years?? Thats worse than WhatsApp’s 2 weeks.
The fundamental problem is the signal foundation sees the phone number as the identity. If you don’t have control of the phone number, you don’t really have control of the identity.
The good news is, they let you change your phone number and maintain your contacts. But if the phone number the account is currently registered to get assigned to somebody else and you don’t change it, then you’re playing the 7-day roulette
That might work in most places, but there are countries that only sell pre-paid cards with ID registration.
What about a virtual phone number?
Not all of them work, and most require some details to create.
Protip: in those countries, go to the tourist hot spots and walk into a SIM selling shop. Use a thick foreign accent.
There’s always an industry for anon SIM cards for tourists.
That won’t work in Australia. You can buy the SIM anywhere of course, you just can’t activate it. You’ll need proof of ID on line to do that… There are only three operators (the rest are resellers). I am sure there are ways around it but not the one you suggest.
When I was last in NZ you didn’t need ID must buy a SIM and good to go, not sjre thats still the case though?
The way you work around it is the shop keeper probably uses their own ID. There’s always a market for tourists
It’s fine for a temporary signal account, but if you let the number expire, then someone else gets assigned that number, and that new person wants to use Signal, they’ll get your account.
They can’t see your old messages, but they’ll get any new ones instead of you.
And sometimes they don’t work at all (that was my experience when I tried using a Google Voice number to sign up for Signal).
I’ve been using a GV number with no problem all this time. 🤷🏻♂🤨
So what you’re saying is that you don’t have an anonymous signal account…
Same
How I Got a Truly Anonymous XMPP Account:
- Open my client (e.g. Conversations, Monal, Dino)
- Pick a random server, username and password
- Click register
Sorry, it’s a cheap joke, but it still baffles me that Signal requires a phone number, so I felt I had to post it :)
Of course, this is not XMPP-specific either, just my protocol of choice, there are many other open alternatives that also offer such functionality.
And - gasp! - you can do it from your computer directly! No Android emulators, no inconvenient command-line client!
and then you can anonymously chat with yourself because no one else will bother installing that favorite app of yours!
I’ve been trying to get people off WhatsApp for who knows how many years now. With Signal, i have a chance of convincing people. When you start talking about matrix or session or SimpleX or ???, people stay on WhatsApp
Different strokes for different folks! I’ve been fortunate enough that many of my family and friends have been happy enough to follow me.
But I don’t disagree with you, Signal has a much more recognisable brand and better user experience. These are things that we need to improve if we’re going to get anywhere near the level of adoption Signal has.
It’s there for a reason. You can’t easily create a spam waves if you need a phone number to create an account. And they added usernames now, so you don’t need to share your phone number with people you want to talk to. It’s just there to create an account and can be hidden after that.
There is Session, that uses UUIDs for names with no phone number requirement, which is basically a fork of Signal with decentralized Loki on top of it.
Isn’t spoofing a phone number easy for scammers? If so, I don’t understand why there is (admittedly) so little spam on Signal.
Does Signal require 2FA upon registration? (I cannot recall)
Spoofing just changes the displayed called/sender ID, not the actual number. They would still need real numbers for each account. And they block a lot of VoIP numbers, like most services these days. And getting carrier SIMs or e-SIMs is a not that easy.
No mandatory 2FA as far as I know.
No mandatory 2FA as far as I know.
Then how is the authenticity of a number tested by Signal?
Privacy ≠ Anonymity
Signal = Privacy
Signal ≠ Anonymity
Signal was made for privacy, not Anonymity.
If you need anonymity, don’t use signal. It was never designed for this. There are tools specially made for anonymity. Look at simplex.
I think anonymity is heavily coupled with privacy, if someone knows my account is linked to my phone number, that’s a very strong form of fingerprinting. Even if E2E encryption is perfect, it takes one bad actor on the the reciever end of my message to both identify who I am through my phone number and leak my message. If just my message is leaked and there’s no fingerprint leading to me, I am still safe. Real example: It took Proton leaking the IP address of a climate activist to the state to get them arrested, not a hole in their E2E mail encryption. A phone number is potentially an even stronger identifier.
If I asked 10 people to give me their home address, they’re not going to care whether someone defines that as privacy or anonymity. But signal’s reliance on phone number’s (which are easily linked to your identity and home address in most countries) as the primary identifier means giving away just that.
Why do people feel the need to split hairs with these terms?
Why do people feel the need to split hairs with these terms?
He’s not splitting hairs. It’s just a different value proposition. I don’t like the phone number requirement either but it makes sense to your average normie who realizes SMS is exposed plaintext. Something like an anonymous seed phrase as the key to your account would confuse most people. Email would be an improvement but it’s at best pseudonymous.
tl;dr the sms verification falls back to voice and they just used a payphone.
I guess if you count the airport full of cameras they went to to do this as “anonymous”, then sure :)
Just wear a face mask and sunglasses and hoodie when using the pay phone. That way you’ll blend-in and be anonymous
That risk is not just theoretical. I made a test account (on another service; not Signal) using a free anonymous SMS number. A few months later, the account had been hijacked.
Of course, if it’s a disposable account, then having it hijacked after you’re done with it might be a good thing.
Signal has account pins now so I don’t think the attack vector is as large as it used to be
They can’t “take over” your account, but they can “override” it and delete yours.
How can they override it?
Register a new account over that phone number. They can’t get into any previous accounts register with that phone number. They could potentially manage to find the pin if the previous user really used a guessable one, but then again, they won’t be able to check the previous messages and the linked owner of that account will be warned of that new connection.
I don’t think that’s possible with a registration lock unless you are inactive for longer than 7 days.
Enabling a registration lock triggers a 7-day inactivity timer if your number is registered on another device.
”It’s important to maintain control of this phone number."
I strongly feel that this is false.
Care to elaborate?
If someone trys to register with an existing number then it wont work if its already being used.
Got a source for that? There have already been multiple contradicting sources posted saying this isn’t true.
I cant find any information that discusses the security risk. But it would seem that this transfering all content to the owner of the phone number is a standard feature.
So, maybe its not discussed because it doesn’t frequently happen.
It doesnt seem like a trustworthy way to ensure users content remains secure.
