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.

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.

Would you? Are the headers encrypted?

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.

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

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.

No they can't.

E: if someone wants to provide evidence to the contrary instead of just downvoting and moving on, please, go ahead.

100,000 people check the news, one person is whistleblowing.

There are many many more people using Signal to yell at their kids to do the dishes or some shit. Not whistleblowing.

Thats a big red arrow pointing to only people sending encrypted messages.

Everyone is using encrypted messages...