▲ 615 ▼ Privacy is Priceless, but Signal is Expensive (signal.org) submitted 2 years ago by u_tamtam@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world 170 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] Scolding7300@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] kariunai@feddit.nl 25 points 2 years ago (1 child) "As of January 2022, the platform had approximately 40 million monthly active users."[0] In 2022 they had $30M expenses, so the cost is somewhat under $1/user/year. They said the minimum donation is there to reduce the viability of scammers using it to check if a stolen credit card number is valid. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Foundation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (3 children) What extra protection does 4 dollars get you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] deur@feddit.nl 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Is it just they know they can only charge like $800 before they get shut down and want that extra $4 for themselves? I am still trying to understand the rationale. If I had no morales and a stolen cc, why would I care if it's a $1 or a $5 charge for validation? I feel like I am learning I don't check my cc info nearly as much as other Americans... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] pajn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) If there's one service where you can check stolen CC info for $1 and another one for $5 you doesn't go with the $5 one for no reason. The $4 extra dollars doesn't matter in itself but that other places are several times cheaper does. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) See I would go with the $5 one with the thought process that almost no establishment let's you charge under $5, so if I ever saw something for less than that it would immediately be a redflag. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AlecSadler@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Half my CCs don't let me set transaction alerts for less than $5-$10, so a $1 or less charge would never notify me, I'd have to be actively checking it every moment of every day to see it immediately. And yes, I have email/text alerts when possible for every. single. charge. on my CCs at the lowest threshold possible and it has helped at least three times thus far. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rubanski@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago 400 times the 1 cent protection permalink fedilink source parent [–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) The point of scammers using a small value to test stolen numbers is they hope such small transactions go unnoticed for longer, allowing them a bigger time window to use and abuse the stolen card number. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) That just doesn't make a lot of sense. I would question something under a dollar way more then something under $10 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Specal@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago That makes you the exception, and not the rule. permalink fedilink source parent [–] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Divide 50 million by the number of users? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Scolding7300@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] qwerty_bastard@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) But how do you know if 25% is a realistically achievable target for supportive users? Could conceivably be less than 10% permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Scolding7300@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 8 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kariunai@feddit.nl 25 points 2 years ago (1 child) "As of January 2022, the platform had approximately 40 million monthly active users."[0] In 2022 they had $30M expenses, so the cost is somewhat under $1/user/year. They said the minimum donation is there to reduce the viability of scammers using it to check if a stolen credit card number is valid. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Foundation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (3 children) What extra protection does 4 dollars get you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] deur@feddit.nl 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Is it just they know they can only charge like $800 before they get shut down and want that extra $4 for themselves? I am still trying to understand the rationale. If I had no morales and a stolen cc, why would I care if it's a $1 or a $5 charge for validation? I feel like I am learning I don't check my cc info nearly as much as other Americans... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] pajn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) If there's one service where you can check stolen CC info for $1 and another one for $5 you doesn't go with the $5 one for no reason. The $4 extra dollars doesn't matter in itself but that other places are several times cheaper does. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) See I would go with the $5 one with the thought process that almost no establishment let's you charge under $5, so if I ever saw something for less than that it would immediately be a redflag. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AlecSadler@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Half my CCs don't let me set transaction alerts for less than $5-$10, so a $1 or less charge would never notify me, I'd have to be actively checking it every moment of every day to see it immediately. And yes, I have email/text alerts when possible for every. single. charge. on my CCs at the lowest threshold possible and it has helped at least three times thus far. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rubanski@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago 400 times the 1 cent protection permalink fedilink source parent [–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) The point of scammers using a small value to test stolen numbers is they hope such small transactions go unnoticed for longer, allowing them a bigger time window to use and abuse the stolen card number. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) That just doesn't make a lot of sense. I would question something under a dollar way more then something under $10 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Specal@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago That makes you the exception, and not the rule. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (3 children) What extra protection does 4 dollars get you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] deur@feddit.nl 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Is it just they know they can only charge like $800 before they get shut down and want that extra $4 for themselves? I am still trying to understand the rationale. If I had no morales and a stolen cc, why would I care if it's a $1 or a $5 charge for validation? I feel like I am learning I don't check my cc info nearly as much as other Americans... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] pajn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) If there's one service where you can check stolen CC info for $1 and another one for $5 you doesn't go with the $5 one for no reason. The $4 extra dollars doesn't matter in itself but that other places are several times cheaper does. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) See I would go with the $5 one with the thought process that almost no establishment let's you charge under $5, so if I ever saw something for less than that it would immediately be a redflag. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AlecSadler@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Half my CCs don't let me set transaction alerts for less than $5-$10, so a $1 or less charge would never notify me, I'd have to be actively checking it every moment of every day to see it immediately. And yes, I have email/text alerts when possible for every. single. charge. on my CCs at the lowest threshold possible and it has helped at least three times thus far. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rubanski@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago 400 times the 1 cent protection permalink fedilink source parent [–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) The point of scammers using a small value to test stolen numbers is they hope such small transactions go unnoticed for longer, allowing them a bigger time window to use and abuse the stolen card number. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) That just doesn't make a lot of sense. I would question something under a dollar way more then something under $10 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Specal@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago That makes you the exception, and not the rule. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] deur@feddit.nl 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Is it just they know they can only charge like $800 before they get shut down and want that extra $4 for themselves? I am still trying to understand the rationale. If I had no morales and a stolen cc, why would I care if it's a $1 or a $5 charge for validation? I feel like I am learning I don't check my cc info nearly as much as other Americans... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] pajn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) If there's one service where you can check stolen CC info for $1 and another one for $5 you doesn't go with the $5 one for no reason. The $4 extra dollars doesn't matter in itself but that other places are several times cheaper does. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) See I would go with the $5 one with the thought process that almost no establishment let's you charge under $5, so if I ever saw something for less than that it would immediately be a redflag. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AlecSadler@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Half my CCs don't let me set transaction alerts for less than $5-$10, so a $1 or less charge would never notify me, I'd have to be actively checking it every moment of every day to see it immediately. And yes, I have email/text alerts when possible for every. single. charge. on my CCs at the lowest threshold possible and it has helped at least three times thus far. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Is it just they know they can only charge like $800 before they get shut down and want that extra $4 for themselves? I am still trying to understand the rationale. If I had no morales and a stolen cc, why would I care if it's a $1 or a $5 charge for validation? I feel like I am learning I don't check my cc info nearly as much as other Americans... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] pajn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) If there's one service where you can check stolen CC info for $1 and another one for $5 you doesn't go with the $5 one for no reason. The $4 extra dollars doesn't matter in itself but that other places are several times cheaper does. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) See I would go with the $5 one with the thought process that almost no establishment let's you charge under $5, so if I ever saw something for less than that it would immediately be a redflag. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AlecSadler@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Half my CCs don't let me set transaction alerts for less than $5-$10, so a $1 or less charge would never notify me, I'd have to be actively checking it every moment of every day to see it immediately. And yes, I have email/text alerts when possible for every. single. charge. on my CCs at the lowest threshold possible and it has helped at least three times thus far. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pajn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) If there's one service where you can check stolen CC info for $1 and another one for $5 you doesn't go with the $5 one for no reason. The $4 extra dollars doesn't matter in itself but that other places are several times cheaper does. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) See I would go with the $5 one with the thought process that almost no establishment let's you charge under $5, so if I ever saw something for less than that it would immediately be a redflag. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AlecSadler@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Half my CCs don't let me set transaction alerts for less than $5-$10, so a $1 or less charge would never notify me, I'd have to be actively checking it every moment of every day to see it immediately. And yes, I have email/text alerts when possible for every. single. charge. on my CCs at the lowest threshold possible and it has helped at least three times thus far. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) See I would go with the $5 one with the thought process that almost no establishment let's you charge under $5, so if I ever saw something for less than that it would immediately be a redflag. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AlecSadler@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Half my CCs don't let me set transaction alerts for less than $5-$10, so a $1 or less charge would never notify me, I'd have to be actively checking it every moment of every day to see it immediately. And yes, I have email/text alerts when possible for every. single. charge. on my CCs at the lowest threshold possible and it has helped at least three times thus far. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AlecSadler@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Half my CCs don't let me set transaction alerts for less than $5-$10, so a $1 or less charge would never notify me, I'd have to be actively checking it every moment of every day to see it immediately. And yes, I have email/text alerts when possible for every. single. charge. on my CCs at the lowest threshold possible and it has helped at least three times thus far. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rubanski@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago 400 times the 1 cent protection permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) The point of scammers using a small value to test stolen numbers is they hope such small transactions go unnoticed for longer, allowing them a bigger time window to use and abuse the stolen card number. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) That just doesn't make a lot of sense. I would question something under a dollar way more then something under $10 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Specal@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago That makes you the exception, and not the rule. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) That just doesn't make a lot of sense. I would question something under a dollar way more then something under $10 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Specal@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago That makes you the exception, and not the rule. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Specal@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago That makes you the exception, and not the rule. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Divide 50 million by the number of users? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Scolding7300@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] qwerty_bastard@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) But how do you know if 25% is a realistically achievable target for supportive users? Could conceivably be less than 10% permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Scolding7300@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 8 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Scolding7300@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] qwerty_bastard@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) But how do you know if 25% is a realistically achievable target for supportive users? Could conceivably be less than 10% permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Scolding7300@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 8 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] qwerty_bastard@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) But how do you know if 25% is a realistically achievable target for supportive users? Could conceivably be less than 10% permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Scolding7300@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 8 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Scolding7300@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 8 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent