At South by Southwest (SXSW), the world's largest annual tech festival in Austin, Texas, I attended an interview with Meredith Whittaker, the president of messaging service Signal. Her statements about privacy and metadata touched on a broader question for me: how can we explain the increasing need for privacy from the perspective of the zeitgeist? Indeed, the way we think about technology and privacy is fundamentally changing. Whereas digital services were long seen as a neutral tool, there is a growing realization that data - and especially metadata - has become a tool of power.
Digital autonomy is becoming increasingly important. The days when technology was seen as purely positive are behind us; users and policymakers are becoming increasingly aware of the power dynamics behind data collection. While encryption is often seen as the main shield against surveillance, there is growing awareness that metadata reveals at least as much about our digital lives.
I took a look at the differences between Signal and other popular messaging services such as WhatsApp, iMessage and Telegram, with a focus on how they handle metadata and what the potential risks are. This article explains what metadata is, why it is increasingly seen as a major privacy risk that users are barely aware of, and why Signal has been gaining popularity lately.
About Signal
Signal is a privacy-focused messaging service launched in 2014 by security researcher Moxie Marlinspike and later backed by Brian Acton, co-founder of WhatsApp. The platform is run by the Signal Foundation, a nonprofit founded in 2018 with seed capital of $50 million from Acton. The number of users switching from Whatsapp to Signal is growing rapidly, fitting into a broader movement emerging as a backlash against so-called surveillance capitalism: the revenue model in which tech companies collect and trade user data. In a digital world where data means power, Signal stands out for having privacy as its primary mission.
What characterizes Signal:
- End-to-end encryption: enabled by default for messages, calls and files. Uses the open-source Signal Protocol, which is also used by WhatsApp.
- No metadata: Signal collects virtually no metadata. It does not know who is communicating with whom, when or from what location.
- Open source: the entire source code is publicly available for review.
- No ads: Signal has no commercial interests, no ads and sells no user data. It is funded entirely by donations.
- Non-profit legal form: Signal is managed by the Signal Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization with no commercial shareholders. This allows it to remain independent and maintain privacy as its primary mission.
Metadata as the true Achilles heel of digital privacy
Digital privacy is often about encrypting the content of messages, but too often a less visible aspect remains underexposed: metadata. These are the digital crumb trails we leave behind: who we message, when, how often, from what location. Many messaging services screen with end-to-end encryption, but 'that does not mean that all data is also private and protected', Whittaker warned us at SXSW. While users think their conversations are safe, metadata can be a gold mine of information. Indeed, intelligence agencies place great value on it. A former NSA and CIA director once bluntly revealed: 'We kill people based on metadata'. That statement underscores how serious the implications can be.
This shows that metadata is not just a technical detail, but a tool that is increasingly being used to exert influence. And that realization is growing. While encryption was long seen as the ultimate shield against surveillance, attention is increasingly shifting to metadata as the true Achilles heel of digital privacy. This fits into a broader trend: technology is no longer seen only as progress, but also as a means of maintaining control.
What is metadata and why is it so valuable?
Metadata is often described as "data about data": information about who is communicating with whom, when, how often and through what device or IP address. It includes all the ambient information surrounding a message or phone call, except the content itself.
Many people say they have nothing to hide. But in reality, everyone needs privacy. Meredith Whittaker articulated this powerfully at SXSW: 'Everyone always has something to hide. You guys close the bathroom door, right? In a crisis situation, do you talk to your best friend the same way you talk to your boss? Do you tell a new friend in a bar the same as you tell your oncologist? No. We have different relationships, we need intimacy, we need safe spaces to think. But we live in a world where power inequalities exist, where those with power can abuse our preferences, patterns and relationships or use them against us. Privacy has never been less important, but we have made it so sterile and technical that it seems as if it no longer concerns us. But privacy guarantees fundamental values: democracy, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, intimacy. We live in an era where a few companies possess unprecedentedly detailed and intimate data about us and our communities. And we are beginning to realize that the world we have thus created carries real risks. That's why we need to create truly private spaces. That's what Signal is trying to do.
Because metadata is so contextually rich, it has been called the digital DNA of our communications. It reveals patterns that should remain hidden: who contacts a journalist, who approaches an aid organization, or who joins an activist movement. This makes metadata not only commercially valuable, but also a powerful tool for surveillance.
Dangers of metadata: surveillance, misuse and leaks
The potential dangers of collecting metadata are concrete and have been demonstrated several times. Governments worldwide use metadata for surveillance. During the Edward Snowden revelations, it was revealed that intelligence agencies were collecting telephone metadata from citizens on a large scale, precisely because it makes it possible to map social networks and behavior. With metadata, authorities can determine, for example, who is connected to each other and how often, information that can be used for detection, but can also be misused to track down dissidents or journalistic sources.
Companies also have a keen interest in metadata. A telling example was the fuss surrounding WhatsApp in 2021. Although WhatsApp end-to-end encrypts message content, a new privacy policy revealed that the company shares extensive user metadata with parent company Facebook (now Meta) for commercial purposes.
Then there are the hacking risks. Data that is not collected also cannot be stolen or leaked, a simple principle that Signal embraces, but many commercial services do not. During the interview, Meredith Whittaker referred to the recent Salt Typhoon hack, which she described as 'catastrophic'. She emphasized that Chinese hackers gained access to millions of account records, including call history, text messages and location data in late 2024. 'Imagine what that means for Washington D.C.,' he said. Whittaker said. 'Who visits an abortion clinic or other sensitive healthcare facility? Which lobbyists meet? Who is in contact with a journalist? This is how powerful metadata is.'
Signal versus other apps: how do they handle metadata?
In the landscape of chat applications, Signal profiles itself as the privacy challenger, with a fundamentally different approach to metadata than many competitors. Signal not only encrypts message content end-to-end, but also minimizes the collection of peripheral information.
How different it is with mainstream chat apps. While WhatsApp also uses end-to-end encryption, Facebook/Meta collects plenty of metadata around WhatsApp chats. In effect, through WhatsApp, you are gifting your social graph (the network of contacts) to a commercial company.
Telegram, another popular app, ironically offers even less metadata protection. Telegram is known to be less secure in terms of both content and context: regular chats on Telegram are not end-to-end encrypted by default and are stored in Telegram's cloud.
Then there is Apple's iMessage, seen by many as a reasonably secure platform thanks to end-to-end encryption between Apple devices. Practice shows, however, that metadata is also a weak spot here. Apple stores certain metadata from iMessage, such as which phone numbers you look up to send a message, plus the date, time and your IP address.
These differences between chat apps show that privacy is not a default, but a conscious choice. While some services actively collect metadata as part of their revenue model, others actually minimize all traces. This explains why more and more users are switching to alternatives such as Signal, where privacy is a fundamental principle and not dependent on commercial interests.
Conclusion: privacy as a battleground of the digital zeitgeist
The way we handle digital privacy is changing rapidly. Where metadata long seemed an invisible byproduct, it is now recognized as a crucial tool of power in digital society. Signal is proving that a messaging service can function without collecting metadata, putting pressure on the industry. As Big Tech increasingly presents itself as privacy-friendly, demand is growing for services that actually deliver on that promise.
Yet the key question remains: who collects what metadata, and for what purpose? The distinction between "real" privacy and "marketing privacy" will only become more important in the coming years. Just as sustainability once began as a marketing term and is now increasingly enforced through regulations and consumer choices, transparency about data collection and data minimization is increasingly becoming a norm.
Meredith Whittaker and other privacy advocates stress that metadata is the key to digital trust. The difference between an app that truly offers privacy and one that merely claims it does is in the amount of metadata that is collected and shared. Signal shows that a different approach is possible, forcing the industry to re-relate to the privacy issue.
In an era where AI and Big Data are increasingly defining how we live and work, control of metadata has become a power struggle. The growing resistance to data collection is part of a broader movement in which citizens, journalists and policymakers no longer view technology as neutral, but as something that actively shapes our society. As Big Tech searches for new ways to monetize data, there is a growing demand for alternatives that truly respect privacy. That movement continues, and Signal proves that a radically different approach is not only possible, but gaining momentum.
By Niels Hansen, Zeitgeist expert | Futurologist | Keynote speaker
Austin (USA), March 12, 2025
