Like someone said the point is they can see the fact that you sent a secured message period. Not with the guardian app though.

The entire point of the article in the OP is that you can send secured messages with The Guardian app. ‍️

Packet data has headers that can identify where it's coming from and where it's going to

Wouldn't you have to have some sort of MITM to be able to inspect that traffic?

This is also why something like Tor manages to circumvent packet sniffing

TOR is what their already-existing tip tool uses.

I dunno, I am not the French state. I can only see that they think the usage of signal is making you a terrorist.

I dont' know, do you have sources about this ?
Or are you imagining thing and deciding it is true ?

Sources for what, exactly? What is "fantasming"? The title of the article you posted is "Criminalization of encryption". The Guardian is using encryption to send messages, so why would they be exempt? In fact, why would any internet use at all not be criminalized? It's all encrypted.

Wouldn't you have to have some sort of MITM to be able to inspect that traffic?

You mean like your workplace wifi that you're blowing the whistle at?

So you read the title and you know everything.
There is a liste of what they are accusing and their is no mention of internet

The elements of the investigation that have been communicated to us are staggering. Here are just some of the practices that are being misused as evidence of terrorist behavior6:

– the use of applications such as Signal, WhatsApp, Wire, Silence or ProtonMail to encrypt communications ;

– using Internet privacy tools such as VPN, Tor or Tails7 ;

– protecting ourselves against the exploitation of our personal data by GAFAM via services such as /e/OS, LineageOS, F-Droid ;

– encrypting digital media;

– organizing and participating in digital hygiene training sessions;

– simple possession of technical documentation.

But continue to invent reality. What are fact if not debatable point of view ?
That the end for me.
Have a great day.

Yes, the guardian app allows you to send encrypted messages through their app to their journalists. 100,000 people check the news, one person is whistleblowing. That one person's messaging traffic is mixed in with the regular news data, so it's not possible to tell which of those 100,000 people are the source. Signal messages travel through their servers, so anyone inspecting packets can see who is sending messages through signal, just not what the messages contain. Thats a big red arrow pointing to only people sending encrypted messages. With this implementation, those people are mixed in with everyone else just reading news or even just having the app on their device.

I don't know everything. Just because it's not explicitly listed today doesn't mean it won't be tomorrow. This was just created yesterday. And it does the same thing that all of those listed apps do: facilitates private communication.

Would you? Are the headers encrypted?

Does it matter? How would you get access to such information?

Wouldn’t you have to have some sort of MITM to be able to inspect that traffic?

That, or a court order telling your ISP or mobile operator to allow the sniffing. Or just the police wanting to snoop your stuff because they can. Not every country cares about individual or human rights, you know

TOR is what their already-existing tip tool uses.

Yes, but tor can be blocked at a firewall level, its packets are easy to identify. "Nations like China, Iran, Belarus, North Korea, and Russia have implemented measures to block or penalize Tor usage"

If the header isn't encrypted it'd be easy to inspect, and thus easy to determine where it goes, which is why it matters.

Based on your questions, it sounds like you're expecting the network traffic itself to be encrypted, as if there were a VPN. Does signal offer such a feature? My understanding is that the messages themselves are encrypted, but the traffic isn't, but I could be wrong.

If the header isn't encrypted it'd be easy to inspect

Easy for whom? How are you getting access to the traffic info?

You're talking about encryption and signal because you're worried about folks whose network you're connected to being able to invade your privacy, right?

I'd say it's a pretty reasonable suggestion to say we start with those guys. If you don't worry about those guys, who do have access to traffic info, then why bother with encryption?

You're talking about encryption and signal because you're worried about folks whose network you're connected to being able to invade your privacy, right?

LOL no? I'd never blow the whistle on my employer from my desk. Even if I did, I would connect to a different network.

I recognize other people are not as conscious as I am of that vulnerability but you asked about me, specifically.

If you don't worry about those guys, who do have access to traffic info, then why bother with encryption?

Any number of other people. Primarily the government.

Any number of other people. Primarily the government.

Right, so if the header isn't encrypted, it'd be trivial for them to see who you're sending to, which is why that's important.

You never answered my question - do you think the network connection itself is encrypted? Or just the content of the messages?

Here's a relevant stack exchange question.
Regarding what an ISP can learn. Of note, everybody is ceding that the ISP can tell you're using signal, and they've moved on to whether or not they'd be able to fingerprint your usage patterns.

I'm sorry you can't grasp this concept. I guess study a different subject.