Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What is traceability and why does WhatsApp oppose it?

faq.whatsapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 120 posts

Re: What is traceability and why does WhatsApp oppose it?

#101

Post by PoignardAzur »

ljm wrote: post #67
dman wrote: post #9

As a user I find this section very intriguing. ************************* "Can WhatsApp work with law enforcement without traceability? WhatsApp respects the important work law enforcement does to keep people safe. Our dedicated team reviews and responds to valid law enforcement requests. We respond to valid requests by providing the limited categories of information available to us, consistent with applicable law and…

It sounds like fancy talk for "we don't share the content, we just share the metadata." Or in this case, "we encrypt the content, but we don't encrypt the metadata" Of course, the metadata has always been more valuable than the exact content of your message, but it's always presented as a negligible detail.

> Of course, the metadata has always been more valuable than the exact content of your message

If you're doing something sensitive, like smuggling drugs or talking to NSA whistleblowers, the difference between metadata vs data is the difference between "the government is looking for an excuse to put you in jail" vs "the government gets a conviction".

Re: What is traceability and why does WhatsApp oppose it?

#102

Post by MomoXenosaga »

nicoburns wrote: post #46
paxys wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WhatsApp wouldn't exist today (at least not at the current scale) had Facebook not bought it. They have operated for over a decade now, serve 2 billion users, and have made close to zero revenue the entire time.

That's not true. They were charging $1/user/year (possibly only on Android and in some countries) before their acquisition. And their costs were low. I'm pretty sure they were profitable.

They dropped that pretty fast. Nobody is going to pay for WhatsApp when other apps offer the same for free.

WhatsApp can actually be monetised successfully by a company like Facebook.

Re: What is traceability and why does WhatsApp oppose it?

#103

Post by dragonwriter »

valarauko wrote: post #98
mind-blight wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The two party system is usually a side effect of first past the post voting systems. Since elections only allow voters to choose one candidate, a third party candidate end up splitting the vote and taking votes away from the candidate who is closest to their political stance. People see that and decide the rational choice is to vote for the candidate that they hate the least with the highest chance of driving, and th…

> third parties merge to form coalitions that actually have a chance of winning. Rinse and repeat until you only have two parties. I would suggest that this probably isn't the case. Since there is no requirement for a majority vote share in first past the post, the same results can be achieved by splitting parties. The parties have more targeted appeal, just enough to squeak past the other parties. This is the case i…

> I would suggest that this probably isn't the case.

It is; both the theoretical and empirical support for this being the effect of FPTP is overwhelming.

> They can be acheived by splitting other parties, but while Party A can choose to form a superparty eith Party B, it can’t choose to durably split Party C instead. Parties in FPTP will, to the extent that they can get away with it, funnel support to minor party candidates that will split the vote of their major opponent, but that’s a short-term tactical rather than long-term strategic maneuver.

> The parties have more targeted appeal, just enough to squeak past the other parties. This is the case in India, for example.

It’s really not, though India is complicated by being a federal system (which means a bunch of different electoral area with different and interacting party systems) and being in the middle of a long realignment from, at the national level, a dominant-party system under Congress (and looks a lot like at least temporarily to a dominant party system under BJP, again at the national level.)

Re: What is traceability and why does WhatsApp oppose it?

#104

Post by eli »

iggldiggl wrote: post #97
Havoc wrote: post #83

WTF is going on with their cookie dialog? Surely that's not even remotely legal? There is just agree and a second dialog with guidance on how to clear cookies per browser (???) and a second agree button. That's not even an attempt at a dark pattern nudging you towards one option...it's just do you agree or do you agree. Hard to trust companies that think that's how consent works... https://imgur.com/a/Ya1XBvG

Facebook's own dialogue is relatively similar – you do get one option for Facebook's own advertising tracking and another for every third-party function mushed together (no differentiation between functional, analytical, advertising, etc.), but in the end no matter what you choose there's still only one 'Accept cookies' button.

I mean, it needs at least a session cookie to keep track of your login, right?

Re: What is traceability and why does WhatsApp oppose it?

#105

Post by steelbrain »

eli wrote: post #104
iggldiggl wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook's own dialogue is relatively similar – you do get one option for Facebook's own advertising tracking and another for every third-party function mushed together (no differentiation between functional, analytical, advertising, etc.), but in the end no matter what you choose there's still only one 'Accept cookies' button.

I mean, it needs at least a session cookie to keep track of your login, right?

"Essential Cookies" in EU don't need a prompt.

How Github got rid of the cookie banner: https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/

Re: What is traceability and why does WhatsApp oppose it?

#106

Post by coolspot »

pmontra wrote: post #31
axiosgunnar wrote: post #3

I hate Facebook as much as anyone here on HN, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If keeping end-to-end-encryption also happens to be in the interest of some faceless multinational corporation, we can use their resources in this fight. We can go back to fighting Facebook once this is over.

> the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I don't want to get into who's your enemy and your enemy's enemy and why, but in general the enemy of you enemy is only the enemy of your enemy. It can be your enemy too. Lighthearted example: any competitive game between 3 or more players. There might be occasional alliances but everybody is the enemy of everybody else.

In any competitive game, if you’re ranked as #2 player, but you can join forces with player ranked #3 to eliminate player ranked #1, your best course of action is do that.

After player #1 is defeated, you have a good chance to defeat player #3 (because you’re #2, meaning you’re better player).

Player #3 joins this campaign in hope to defeat you, but also because they can get whatever second place gives.

Re: What is traceability and why does WhatsApp oppose it?

#107

Post by feross »

Havoc wrote: post #83

WTF is going on with their cookie dialog? Surely that's not even remotely legal? There is just agree and a second dialog with guidance on how to clear cookies per browser (???) and a second agree button. That's not even an attempt at a dark pattern nudging you towards one option...it's just do you agree or do you agree. Hard to trust companies that think that's how consent works... https://imgur.com/a/Ya1XBvG

This comment is a huge distraction from the actual substance in the link.

Re: What is traceability and why does WhatsApp oppose it?

#108

Post by ProAm »

pegasus wrote: post #80
ProAm wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to know why he thinks it should have been stopped. At the time of that purchase I think any messaging platform could have been sold to anyone and not been stopped (imo).

Again, it's simple: he says it should have been stopped, not that it could have been stopped. Or you could read it as "in a better system, this purchase would have been seen as anticompetitive and stopped". I happen to agree with the sentiment.

> he says it should have been stopped,

Again, I ask why. It wasn't anti-competitve because the service still exists as a standalone service just with a different owner. I see what you are saying it just does not make any sense in terms of antitrust or anti-competitiveness

Re: What is traceability and why does WhatsApp oppose it?

#109

Post by dman »

tg180 wrote: post #68
dman wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The backups are an interesting thing that you bring up. The cynic in me cant help thinking that even as companies posture about being pro privacy, they do design features in a way where they can subvert privacy with plausible deniability. For instance the move away from screen passwords to biometric things like fingerprints had me thinking about the fact that from a police pov - if they have a suspect in custody, for…

If you are thinking about a scenario like xkcd-538, it’s even worse. Pass-codes and pass-phrases are protected under the 5th amendment, while biometrics are not. The investigator will get a warrant for the biometric in question, refusing to comply is an offense.

Which is why I have been very wary on why almost the entire industry has moved to biometrics. In a way its a cheap way of throwing the privacy gauntlet back to the user rather than standing up to governments.

Re: What is traceability and why does WhatsApp oppose it?

#110

Post by GekkePrutser »

Y-bar wrote: post #87
Havoc wrote: post #83

WTF is going on with their cookie dialog? Surely that's not even remotely legal? There is just agree and a second dialog with guidance on how to clear cookies per browser (???) and a second agree button. That's not even an attempt at a dark pattern nudging you towards one option...it's just do you agree or do you agree. Hard to trust companies that think that's how consent works... https://imgur.com/a/Ya1XBvG

I can’t see how that is acceptable in EU. For example Max Schrems has this to say about these dark pattens: https://noyb.eu/en/noyb-aims-end-cookie-banner-terror-and-is...

He's doing great work for sure!
Post reply on HN