Basically I am looking for a messaging platform like signal or? but with anonymous signup, perfect forward secrecy, capable of video chat, sending photos the usual uses in today’s life. But with a panic button. So that any party member could use said button to wipe all other members devices of any data instantly inside the messaging app. So if one member gets compromised, or lost their device, stolen device ect, any other member could wipe all chats, call log, and any other data strictly inside the messaging client instantly for everyone involved. Disolving the group like it never existed rendering the data unrecoverable. Amazons Wickr used to have most of these features but it is being discontinued December 2023 and who trusts amazon with their data. Does something like this exist? Sorry if I’m not explaining it well I’ll do my best to clarify and update this post. I am not trying to delete the whole device. Just the data inside the messaging app. If that does not exist. What about a separate app that could delete the entire messaging platform from the device when triggered. Assume all necessary requirements are met and this is for daily use. Between a group of trusted parties.
Updated wording to clarify the objective as replies where getting misunderstood.
You can never guarantee that other client’s data will be deleted. Assume that once your data gets sent, it can potentially be archived forever.
The greatest weakness in any Enterprise are the people, not the technology.
You just have to look at all of the people who recorded signal chats in both the ftx, and the Trump trials. As soon as people think they’re in danger, they’re going to look for anything they can use as leverage. They’ll use another phone to take a photo of their first phone.
Even if you communicate with people using ephemeral read once messages, that doesn’t stop them from recording it themselves. There’s no guarantee the data gets deleted on the other end, they could be using a modified client, the desktop app is a horrendous security nightmare, if they view that ephemeral message on the desktop app there’s no guarantee it’s actually deleted.
Depending on your threat model, you can incorporate technology with ephemeral messaging into your use case. But you have to be very clear, about what your threats are, and what your tolerances are.
There’s a reason certain highly sensitive organizations use skifs… Only organics are allowed to go in, and only organics are allowed to leave.
…flat bottom open boats? Like, on a lake or something?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_compartmented_information_facility
SCIF not skif, sorry, voice to text typo.
OH lmao.
They mean scif
Basically a secure office building room where individuals can talk sensitive info
Using scifs is widely known and of course a good addition to certain threat models. But doesn’t account for distance of individuals. My post was inferring distance between parties. That is why I talked about messaging clients and their features. For times when parties cannot possible be in person, also this is for everyday use not one time, I’m asking about a messaging client and feature set. Otherwise very good info here for others to learn and read on. Good post! FYI its worth reading on Pegasus and their zero click infection capabilities and multiple zero day exploits.
I understand your point of view. I share that philosophy to some degree. However nothing is a guarantee. But a high degree of certainty is achievable. But that doesn’t answer my question. Is there a messaging platform with a panic button that deletes the chat log and call logs from all user involved which can be triggered from any member.
Edit wording and update. This got downvoted because of a misinterpretation of what I was saying when I said high degree of certainty. All I meant was this isn’t supposed to a fool proof blanket feature and the world doesn’t run on absolutes of course. For instance signal works with a high degree of certainty that youll be secure. I was conveying its highly probable this feature under correct parameters would function correctly. Simply a step in the chain of failsafes. None the less. Thanks for your replies.