71–80 of 155 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Messages are. I do not believe that metadata about the messages are, however. So they know who you're speaking to, at what frequency, and from where.
Fair enough. That's not a problem to me but I can see it being an issue for people requiring complete anonymity. Are there any alternatives to WhatsApp that would fix this problem?
Try Briar, I think it does not store metadata either?
As others have already said, think about what you're doing when you use this. If you connect a not-selhosted LLM to this, you're effectively uploading chat message with other people to a third-party server. The people you chat with have an expectation of privacy so this would probably be illegal in many jurisdictions.
I would argue that there is no expectation of privacy for messaging apps without end to end encryption. There is always the man in the middle listening.
It's up to you to trust Meta or not, but people who trust them do have an expectation of privacy.
As others have already said, think about what you're doing when you use this. If you connect a not-selhosted LLM to this, you're effectively uploading chat message with other people to a third-party server. The people you chat with have an expectation of privacy so this would probably be illegal in many jurisdictions.
I would argue that there is no expectation of privacy for messaging apps without end to end encryption. There is always the man in the middle listening.
As others have already said, think about what you're doing when you use this. If you connect a not-selhosted LLM to this, you're effectively uploading chat message with other people to a third-party server. The people you chat with have an expectation of privacy so this would probably be illegal in many jurisdictions.
> The people you chat with have an expectation of privacy so this would probably be illegal in many jurisdictions. Name one
You have a "allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht" (general personal rights?) that prevents other people from publishing information that's supposed to be private.
Here's a case where someone published a facebook dm for example:
As others have already said, think about what you're doing when you use this. If you connect a not-selhosted LLM to this, you're effectively uploading chat message with other people to a third-party server. The people you chat with have an expectation of privacy so this would probably be illegal in many jurisdictions.
I would argue that there is no expectation of privacy for messaging apps without end to end encryption. There is always the man in the middle listening.
And it also doesn't even matter because WhatsApp claims to be E2E-encrypted.
For some people it is a requirement to have a social life. It is not your choice to use it or not. Network effects are taking care of that. If you think Signal or whatever is a better choice, good on you. But if you don't want to cut ties with some of your friends, prepare to use multiple apps. Including WhatsApp.
If I find out someone pipes my chat messages into a LLM, I will not converse with that person anymore.
Funny that people freakout about a local LLM while using Facebook products. They're probably the same types who use it to do their work.
That doesn't make the metadata private. Meta can use that as they want. But not the contents, nor the images, not even in group chats (as opposed to Telegram, where group-chats aren't (weren't?) E2E encrypted).
What you say or send on WA is private. Meta cannot see that. Nor governments nor your ISP or your router. Only you and the person or people you sent it to can read that.
It's a d*ck move if they then publicize this. And, as others pointed out, illegal even in many jurisdictions: AFAIK, it is in my country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The people you chat with have an expectation of privacy so this would probably be illegal in many jurisdictions. Name one
Germany. You have a "allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht" (general personal rights?) that prevents other people from publishing information that's supposed to be private. Here's a case where someone published a facebook dm for example: https://openjur.de/u/636287.html
My family members all back up our conversations to Google Drive, I doubt WhatsApp would provide that feature if it were illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think they (plan to) decrypt messages and then upload them again in plain text to a server? Since on-device processing is neither as objectionable nor could be very large I don't use WhatsApp myself because of who runs it and there are plenty of better options out there, so I certainly agree with the sentiment of steering clear, but this claim does seem pretty far out there
They don't plan it because they have no use for it. They only care about the metadata. When you talked to this person; your wife; at what time of day; was it at night; how long is the message; was there a product mentioned in the message; was the message about sports; etc.
We do need to trust Meta that they really don't, to some extent, but people way smarter than me have researched the WA implementation of the Signal protocol and it seems solid. I.E: Meta appears to simply be unable to read what you chat and send. (but TBC: they do see with whom and when you do this, just not the contents).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Germany. You have a "allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht" (general personal rights?) that prevents other people from publishing information that's supposed to be private. Here's a case where someone published a facebook dm for example: https://openjur.de/u/636287.html
That case describes publishing this to the public internet. I don't believe the same would apply when using a tool like this. My family members all back up our conversations to Google Drive, I doubt WhatsApp would provide that feature if it were illegal.
But if they use your input as training data, that would probably be enough.