| GitHub | https://github.com/taralx |
So if you initiate the phone-to-phone Signal account transfer process, and it almost completes, such that the account is transferred, but the data isn't, and then errors out ... and if you didn't have backups enabled ... then your entire chat history just vanishes* into thin air with zero recourse. In other words, Signal nukes your history from orbit on the old phone before validating that it actually successfully transferred to the new phone.
I am indescribably angry right now.
(The extra insurance you need, that I didn't have, was to enable general backups on the old phone first, and make sure that a backup completes on the old phone before initiating the transfer.)
Edit: kindly folks in my mentions are trying to explain that Signal wants to ensure that there is only ever one primary phone. The problem is that the risk of data loss due to the lack of confirmation of data transfer is well known enough to be in their troubleshooting guide (which, by the time you know you need it, is too late):
https://infosec.exchange/@tychotithonus/115790449517648907
The user should be vigorously, repeatedly warned of the risk of data loss, right there in the transfer workflow, and strongly encouraged to make a backup prior to initiating the transfer.
* Edit 2: In the old phone, all history was visibly absent, immediately after the account was transferred. But now, after reboot of the old phone ... all of my message history is there?! But the backup option is gone, so I can't create a local backup in order to try to restore it. But at least all the history is still on the old phone? But there appears to be way to move it.

Attached: 1 image @NormanDunbar@mastodon.scot Nice thought, but ... it turns out it's already a known issue, but it's buried in their troubleshooting, such that there'd be no reason for someone to look for it until it was already too late. https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/10075160307482-Troubleshooting-Device-Transfers @signalapp@mastodon.world
"Unfortunately We Are Unable To Provide Feedback"
No, you're not "unable", you are unwilling. And this is not OK.
https://gagliardoni.net/#20251227_nofeedback
Many cybersecurity and Web3 conferences refuse to provide an explanation of why a submission was rejected. The argument is that it would be too much time consuming due to the large volume of applications, but in this blog post (which is both a rant and an open letter) I make the point that this is just an excuse, and it's due time to change this behavior. It's not only a lack of respect for the community, but also a red flag about the transparency of the review process.
Please be better than this.
The 2025 Headline of the Year Nominees
🧵
RE: https://techpolicy.social/@ericgoldman/115758771102887176
When articles breathlessly announce that AI will mean the end of the legal profession, I am not sure they envisage it ending like this...