WhatsApp would not remove end-to-end encryption for UK law, says chief

https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2021/05/07/how-sign...

> Signal’s idea was to get users to abandon WhatsApp and switch to Signal, an instant messaging service run by a non-profit foundation, which has proven its commitment to protecting the privacy of its users and that is seeing significant take up, especially after the latest changes to WhatsApp’s privacy policies.

This whole ordeal was doubly-dishonest, as not only were they running ads against one product line (Instagram) with the specific goal of getting people to switch away from a different one (WhatsApp), but the entire thing was just FUD designed to attack Facebook for going out of their way to build something that actually did honor end-to-end encrypted goals: companies wanted to be able to do Facebook Messenger -like company-to-user chat stuff, and so Facebook wanted to provide a way--specifically for companies--to use a portal to access a "hosted" WhatsApp client.

But like, that would mean that Facebook would, for just these specific chats with business accounts, potentially (if the company was using this service) be able to read those messages, so they had to adjust their privacy policy. In some cases, this didn't even involve removing text, but was just a matter of moving some text... but Signal didn't care much about accuracy: they were stoking the flames every way they could and in the process frankly harmed their own mission because a ton of people ended up going in the exact opposite direction, moving to apps like Telegram.

Here is a comment I had left at the time of this specific particularly-big incident going down, which has then a link to another comment I'd left with more detail on this (as my memory is fading on this stuff) including quotes from both Facebook representatives and their documentation.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26801760

Signal is a non-profit whose mission should be to get people to move to encrypted technologies whether or not that decision involves Signal and they should be trying to work with Facebook on the narrative surrounding WhatsApp, not throwing them under the bus any chance they have to get some publicity for Signal. Here's the real question: have you ever seen them publicly go after Snapchat, or Telegram? As far as I can tell--not just from memory, but from doing some searches on the topic--the answer seems to be "no": they go after WhatsApp, because that product is the closest to being a direct competitor to Signal.

(That said, I also want to be clear: the actual part where Facebook didn't allow them to run the ads and the feud there is also not good... but not only are the morals there a bit more murky, it makes both sides look shitty to be sitting around in some epic fight over their market, and all the meanwhile the benefactors were the apps other than Signal and WhatsApp, and Signal should be sticking to their mission and teaming up there to help clarify to prevent those kinds of losses.)

2) I'm not making any claims about it being desirable or effective, I'm just explaining what 'exiting the UK' means or what they'd be required to do. The crown won't sue a foreign company because a citizen found a way to workaround it not being available here - that would be like criticising the manufactuter of an illegally dangerous electrical item only rated for and sold in 110V markets that someone imported.

Let's not get carried away. There are other apps with equal parity. Most people in SE Asia use Line perfectly well. There's also Signal and Telegram

Switching costs are free.