Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it ain't open-source, you can't trust it. Signal or GTFO.
I trust matrix over signal. signal has a shitcoin and the new ceo is sketch.
I trust XMPP over Matrix. Both for security and less bloat.
WhatsApp would not remove end-to-end encryption for UK law, says chief
111–120 of 173 posts
Re: WhatsApp would not remove end-to-end encryption for UK law, says chief
#112I can't believe Meta is fighting the good fight for once.
They're just defending their (enormous) market share. I don't expect they are doing it from the goodness of their heart.
I'm not that cynical. They could just drop E2EE from their product and call it a day. It wouldn't make much of a difference for them.
Re: WhatsApp would not remove end-to-end encryption for UK law, says chief
#113I was wondering why can't chat apps be like email apps: i.e., let users point to a private key on their own phone, and publish their public key. Then, just like exchanging secure emails, people transparently chat using the same encrypt-decrypt mechanism? Won't this work?
That's basically exactly what is happening, What's app just hides if from you. But you can verify each others keys in Whatsapp.
If you use Signal, you can do it basically. Same for Matrix.
Its just that these systems try to make it so people don't have to know anything about this to use it securely.
Re: WhatsApp would not remove end-to-end encryption for UK law, says chief
#114I can't believe Meta is fighting the good fight for once.
They’ve been fighting it since adding e2e encryption to their products, but people don’t know that
They partly don't know that because Signal likes to throw WhatsApp under the bus any chance they get, rather than treating them as an ally; I wish Signal would redirect their efforts to choosing new targets, whether in their current app or in a new different product, taking on the ilk of Snapchat/Telegram or even Discord.
Re: WhatsApp would not remove end-to-end encryption for UK law, says chief
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
That last bit is exactly right. The UK has proposed all sorts of plainly moronic online restrictions, which never actually get implemented. They simply don't have the clout to push around enormous American companies. It's a tiny country. If the EU or US were proposing such a law, you should take it seriously, but this is just a joke.
Because these proposals are never intended to be implemented. It is an anchor, which is intentionally ridiculous and outrageous, so that when the next slightly less severe proposal is made it doesn't sound as bad as the previous one. It's very transparent but also standard operating procedure for the current UK government.
indeed, see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
Re: WhatsApp would not remove end-to-end encryption for UK law, says chief
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
They say that 98% of users are outside the UK (and those users very likely won't want reduced encryption), so whatsapp would probably just exit the UK.
I know in some non-US countries, WhatsApp is the default way of communicating (like SMS is in the US). Is that true in the UK? That could put significant pressure on the government
Yes - especially for politicians - although looking at what’s currently leaking in certain UK newspapers one would think they would already be pushing for /more/ privacy on WhatApp rather than less.
Re: WhatsApp would not remove end-to-end encryption for UK law, says chief
#117This could be very good for Meta, just get the government to never exercise the law on you and to do it instead on smaller competitors that may threaten you. Now everyone wanting to make a communications app (or anything implementing that functionality) is risking an expensive lawsuit on the UK. Meta too, but they have the bucks and influence to weather it.
Just block the UK and make everyone use a VPN this is already the case with age verification for adult content.
Re: WhatsApp would not remove end-to-end encryption for UK law, says chief
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're just defending their (enormous) market share. I don't expect they are doing it from the goodness of their heart.
I'm not that cynical. They could just drop E2EE from their product and call it a day. It wouldn't make much of a difference for them.
i think to expect a multi-billion dollar organisation to make consequential decisions like this based on anything other than cold calculation is naive at best and enormously stupid at the very worst.
Re: WhatsApp would not remove end-to-end encryption for UK law, says chief
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
UK politicians themselves use WhatsApp a lot. They will strike the law down a day after WhatsApp stops working in UK. 2 days after there will be massive public outrage since everybody uses WhatsApp in UK. It's an empty threat, just like the internet porn law.
That last bit is exactly right. The UK has proposed all sorts of plainly moronic online restrictions, which never actually get implemented. They simply don't have the clout to push around enormous American companies. It's a tiny country. If the EU or US were proposing such a law, you should take it seriously, but this is just a joke.
It's a country with 20% of the population of the USA. That's not exactly a tiny country.
> If the EU or US were proposing such a law, you should take it seriously
Judging from a few quick searches, there are more Facebook employees in the UK than in Ireland which is their main base of EU operations. They also have a presence in Switzerland (also not EU). FB apparently have some employees in Germany to comply with local hate speech laws, do marketing and HR work, but it doesn't seem like anything they'd miss much if they had to exit especially as they're laying people off anyway.
Now that said, I think Meta can win against the UK govt if they want to duke it out but the idea that the UK is a "tiny country" vs the EU is not reflective of Meta's actual exposure. The EU is not a particularly attractive place for tech firms to hire.