32

Is this some simple virtue signaling (for closed source app) directed at users that are not technically inclined? I didn't see this being promoted at this level in any other app.

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] drcouzelis@lemmy.zip 19 points 1 year ago

From what I understand, WhatsApp does have proper end to end encryption, which means messages can only be read by the sender and recipient. It's a very good thing, and SHOULD be promoted in my opinion.

But that doesn't mean WhatsApp respects your privacy. Even though the messages are encrypted, the actual app is still collecting and scraping every little piece of info about you possible. Think location, IP addresses, your contacts, what's in your clipboard, camera, mic... I don't know the details, but that's where the privacy concerns come from.

[-] kyub@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, though since it's closed source, contains other proprietary libraries and probably was never properly audited (by a 3rd party) it's possible (even likely, considering it's Meta we're talking about) that they keep a copy of the private key(s) and the messages, so that they're able to decrypt them, and so still be able to gather the content, in addition to everything else, while they can publicly claim it's all Signal's protocol so everything's "E2E". And yes, the app also gathers a lot of other data (actual and metadata) besides the content of the messages (which Meta can't supposedly see since it's E2E, but I never trust anything from Meta). A Meta app (or Google, or MS, for that matter) should generate the same sort of privacy outrages and media/politics attention like TikTok does, but somehow they don't. "Same shit, different country" was never so fitting.

Here's a very good messenger comparison: https://www.messenger-matrix.de/messenger-matrix-en.html

[-] kirklennon@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

I think it may have something to do with the fact that the UK is far along in a plan to effectively ban encrypted messaging, and many other countries are looking in the same draconian direction. They want non-techy users (AKA voters) to know about it and to understand that it's super important.

[-] HipPriest@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

UK person here - my concern is that the opposition haven't clearly stated that they would repeal the law if they were voted into power (to my knowledge, I'd be delighted to be corrected on this front!)

So letting voters know about it is great but if none of the main parties are actually against the law coming into effect - which is being sold as an anti-paedophile/child abuse measure, which framed like that would be popular with a lot of non-techy voters who don't trust an unregulated internet - a few little messages saying 'yay encryption!' aren't going to do anything.

[-] kirklennon@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

I don’t think there’s anything particularly partisan about the law in the first place so it’s not so much an issue of what any party supports but rather education of the electorate at large. People aren’t going to get excited about encryption but they will be angry when WhatsApp stops working (which is what is going to happen) and they need to know why. Ideally they’ll hear enough rumblings that literally all of their messaging apps are going to stop working before the law goes into effect to stop it in time.

[-] HipPriest@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I mean I think this is why it's an interesting scenario - that's very much the view losing side of things but I don't think the politicians have fully grasped that yet. I don't know whether that's because they think the tech companies will ultimately 'come round' - in which case they're badly mistaken - or whether they're really that badly informed.

But politicians organise everything by WhatsApp as we've learned... I honestly don't think they understand the consequences. But I'm just a poor humble member of the electorate, what do I know compared to intellectual titans like Jacob Reece-Mogg and Suella Braveman (who presumably as home sec has an interest in this?)

[-] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I wonder if these government officials in the UK would be happy with me opening their physical "private" mail and reading it before handing it to them?

FYI tampering with someone's mail is illegal. So why would this not hold true for any form of communication between two or more parties.

[-] u202307011927@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What about email then? First digital messaging technology of the world and still unencrypted to this day

[-] purahna@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think you nailed it, it's flashy virtue signaling/techno-mysticism to make people feel like they're secure while using a closed source app with incomplete E2E and backdoors

[-] DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Don't trust any Meta product, Zuck doesn't give a fuck about the privacy of his customers/end users.

this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
32 points (94.4% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35822 readers
849 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS