> The most obvious one is fairly basic traffic correlation using the IPs and timing information.
That is made very difficult by Signal's volume. The more people use Signal and the more things they use it for, the harder it becomes to discern a meaningful pattern.
> I don't understand the point you're making.
No I sort of gathered, which is why I used the Times Square camouflage analogy. You stand out because you've gone out of your way to "protect yourself". That traffic correlation you were so excited might be possible for Signal is instead trivial for your personal homeserver with its handful of users.
You've gone out of your way to make yourself less safe because of a misunderstanding of the threat. It's very common.
That is made very difficult by Signal's volume. The more people use Signal and the more things they use it for, the harder it becomes to discern a meaningful pattern.
> I don't understand the point you're making.
No I sort of gathered, which is why I used the Times Square camouflage analogy. You stand out because you've gone out of your way to "protect yourself". That traffic correlation you were so excited might be possible for Signal is instead trivial for your personal homeserver with its handful of users.
You've gone out of your way to make yourself less safe because of a misunderstanding of the threat. It's very common.