Private messengers: what to look for and my top pick to dethrone Signal

There are many instant messengers to choose from on the market and most of them come with some promises of privacy and end-to-end encryption. They throw at us some technical jargon, mention some sort of security protocol and, of course, win everybody over with the famous "military-grade encryption" pitch.

What does it all even mean? Is this all true? Can we trust those sorts of statements?

As the famous saying goes:

"Don't trust. Verify."

I'm a big proponent of people doing their own due diligence. Digging as deep as possible. Never to trust things at face value. Heck, you shouldn’t even trust this article. Take this as a simple call to action to do your research after reading it.

For me, there are a few decisive factors to keep in consideration when choosing a particular tool like a private messenger. Mind you, this is not a fool-proof system. There isn't a perfect private and secure instant messenger out there. However, in this ongoing battle for privacy, we can surely improve our fighting chances.

If you're in the camp of those preaching that your life is an open book and you have nothing to hide, just remember the famous wise words of Edward Snowden:

"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."

It seems to me that every generation after GenX doesn't appreciate what we fought so hard for not so long ago: freedom of speech, democracy, independence, justice, rule of law, equality and, of course, privacy.

In recent history, some European countries lived under authoritarian regimes. There was no privacy. There were undercover government informers at every corner, and it was a crime to meet up with your friends in public due to fears of conspiracy or mutiny.

Privacy is a true achievement for modern Democracies. It is a Constitutional right for most developed countries. In fact, privacy is even deemed a pilar of our society, an inherent and inalienable human right protected under Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which reads as follows:

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

Therefore, if for no other reason, it is at least our duty to ensure that we play our part in maintaining privacy in our communications, in our correspondence.

Let's face it. Most days you'll only be sending out heart emojis and sharing funny memes.

Artificial Intelligence systems used by surveillance agencies will probably filter those out. Heck, even if your meme gets red-flagged, you'll probably bring some joy to the poor analyst asked to review your messages.

Still, that's not the point. The point is that no one should be getting access to what you're assuming to be a private message. The point is that you shouldn't be profiled as someone endorsing whatever message you receive or send out.

So, what are the important factors to consider when picking the right option for you?

The program or app should be open source. It should be audited by credible and independent third-party entities. It should publish transparency reports or have a warrant canary system in place.

Being open source means anyone can see the code and examine if the tool is indeed programmed to do what it says it does. Are there any concerning or weird pieces of code that could suggest the existence of a bug easily exploitable by hackers or is a backdoor system in place? Is the assembled program that you are installing compiled from the source code available publicly by its developers without any interference or changes? Do you want to build it from source yourself? In short, this guarantees that you are not being duped by empty promises of greatness from the developers or from the company behind it.

If the code has been audited by a reputable entity, that means it has a stamp of approval from real experts. You see, being open source is great, but not all of us know how to interpret the code in search of potential bugs and other problems. That's when these third-party auditors become really useful. It gives us more piece of mind. Just remember that, for extra security, it is always best to check if the auditor analysed the current version we're using. If the review was conducted 2 years ago and there have been a lot of updates since then, maybe lots of problems have been created in the meantime and remain undetected. Regular audits are a must.

If the developers publish a transparency report or some sort of warrant canary on their website or social media, that's a very good sign too. This will basically inform you if the people behind the platform have been issued any type of court order to provide information about its users, thus potentially compromising its privacy. The canary is usually a real-time alarm indicator used by many as a graphical depiction of a bird which disappears automatically in case they receive a shady request.

Lastly, don't fall for the military-grade encryption rhetoric. It's misleading. Without going into much detail, this just means it follows the same cryptographic standards that have been around for years. It's highly likely that even your web browser right now uses it to communicate with a lot of sites. Those messaging programs aren’t jumping through hoops and loops to offer you something unique.

So, what could you use as a better alternative to Signal? I particularly like “Element X - Secure Messenger”, and simply love “Session - Private Messenger”.

Pavel Durov Released on €5M Bail, Won't Be Allowed to Leave France

- "The 39-year-old billionaire’s case is an unprecedented test of the power of governments over multinational tech companies operating under widely varying laws around the world. Durov’s Telegram is unusual for being run from a nonaligned Middle Eastern country, the United Arab Emirates, and for declaring that it shares no information with authorities anywhere about messages or activities on the site."

- It is absurd to suggest Durov could be implicated in any crime committed on the app, Durov’s lawyer, David-Olivier Kaminski, told the AFP news agency, adding: "Telegram complies in all respects with European rules concerning digital technology."