[Feature] Make plausible deniability more obvious

[gUser5689]

SimpleX Chat has mentioned that it is possible for anyone to create a message that seems to come from anyone, i.e. plausible deniability, making it possible for anyone to say that "I didn't write that". That should be clearly visible in the beginning of every message in my opinion.

SimpleX Chat have also suggested that they might add an easier way to accomplish that in the user interface.

However, other than the police etc, I am certain that most people don't know and understand there is plausible deniability in simplex chat and therefore it will make it even easier to discredit people for saying things they haven't and, as we all know, people can be really toxic on the internet, spreading rumours and disinformation.

A female friend of mine really frowned when she heard this and looked like she was about to stop using simplex chat. She has been discredited before on the internet for things she has not said or done.

[gUser5689]

Maybe a small text label at the top of each message saying "plausible deniability" with some kind of link icon beside it and when you click on the label an information dialog pops up with a more thorough description.

[ITwrx]

I'm usually in favor of help text/icons in applications, and use them extensively in my own application, but i'm not in favor of this FR. I think help text/icons should be used for user interface information, or info that is critical for getting a specific task done. Explaining things that are more general to the whole application is a slippery slope and you can easily end up with help text/icons everywhere. If one just looks at all the threat model info SimpleX has posted about the application, imagine trying to make all that "more obvious" in the GUI. It would be crazy. YMMV.

[ITwrx]

I see this too now: https://www.reddit.com/r/SimpleXChat/comments/1al1emd/improving_repudiation_deniability_in_simplex/

I'm fine with having signed and unsigned messages where unsigned have deniability. I think that's a good thing. If i'm discussing a job with a client, for instance, we may agree to use signed messages for the discussion. This was the type of use case i was alluding to in my original comment in #4141; not trying to out/frame someone as a "Baddie" using private messages. though i'm sure some people may do that.

If SimpleX had two different types of messages/conversations, some GUI facilitation may be necessary, though it may not be so easy to do right.

[Rubber-Duckie]

I see this too now: https://www.reddit.com/r/SimpleXChat/comments/1al1emd/improving_repudiation_deniability_in_simplex/

I'm fine with having signed and unsigned messages where unsigned have deniability. I think that's a good thing. If i'm discussing a job with a client, for instance, we may agree to use signed messages for the discussion. This was the type of use case i was alluding to in my original comment in #4141; not trying to out/frame someone as a "Baddie" using private messages. though i'm sure some people may do that.

If SimpleX had two different types of messages/conversations, some GUI facilitation may be necessary, though it may not be so easy to do right.

In terms of user experience, the app could use a small padlock icon or even just a green coloured dot to show whether messages are signed or unsigned. This visual cue would help users understand the security status of a given message at a glance. But I have to agree, I did not know about signed messages and given the importance of this concept, it needs more marketing and end user awareness.

So with respect to educating users about the app, it’s best to avoid overloading the message thread with warnings and conditions, the thread is slow enough to update as it is, needs an bit of an overhaul. Instead, the app should provide a straightforward tutorial on the key features during the installation process. This tutorial should end with a reminder that users can always refer back to the user guide from the app’s menu for more information. Keep the WiKi end user friendly and up to date, that should be more than sufficient.