Signal vs Samsung
Based on our analysis, Signal is the more privacy-respecting choice overall.
BACK →| Category | Signal | Samsung |
|---|---|---|
| Overall | A · 87/100 | D · 39/100 |
| What they collect | Positive (88) | Concern (25) |
| Who they share it with | Positive (88) | Concern (32) |
| What you can do | Mixed (78) | Mixed (50) |
| What they promise | Positive (86) | Mixed (45) |
Signal is a nonprofit that genuinely cannot read your messages or listen to your calls — the encryption is architectural, not a promise — but it requires a real phone number to register, is subject to US law, and its privacy policy is conspicuously sparse: it hasn't been substantively updated since 2018 and lacks the specific retention periods, GDPR rights, or DPO contact that more thorough policies provide.
View full analysis →Samsung's data appetite is unusually broad for a hardware maker: voice recordings stored on servers with potential third-party retention, keyboard input logging via Predictive Text synced across devices, and persistent hardware identifiers that survive ad-ID resets. The company explicitly acknowledges that sharing with business partners may constitute a data sale under US law (CCPA). Full GDPR-grade rights are reserved for EEA/UK/Swiss residents; everyone else gets basic access and deletion with no response-time commitments. Retention timelines are vague and there are no named security certifications or breach notification windows.
View full analysis →