TikTok will not introduce end-to-end encryption, saying it makes users less safe

Post by kgwxd » Wed, Mar 04, 2026, 11:33 AM UTC

roncesvalles wrote: post #202

khalic wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, saying that e2e encryption makes users _less_ safe is completely dishonest, nothing is fine about this. The logic of "anything is better than before" is also fallacious.

Depends on your definition of "safe". Imagine an adult DMs a nude photo to a minor (or other kinds of predation). If it's E2EE, no one except the sender and receiver know about this conversation. You want an MITM in this case to detect/block such things or at least keep record of what's going on for a subpoena. I agree that every messaging platform in the world shouldn't be MITM'd, but every messaging platform doesn'…

Post by kgwxd » Wed, Mar 04, 2026, 11:37 AM UTC

haritha-j wrote: post #126

xeckr wrote: post #22

Brilliant. They're repackaging the argument governments have long made about E2EE being dangerous to children.

I don't understand why all teh child safety systems require age verification. Why not have a single setting on a smartphone that sends a 'child' flag to every single app or website, which then reacts accordingly? As long as you ensure that the browser can't be changed or modifed, it should be fine.

Post by trashb » Wed, Mar 04, 2026, 11:39 AM UTC

danlitt wrote: post #219

trashb wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case don't use Tiktok dm's to discuss your sexuality. I think it is strange that people feel like they have to be able to talk on sensitive topics over every interface they can get their hands on. Similarly in "traditional" media you may not want to discuss such private conversation on a radio broadcast. Perhaps you would rather discuss it on the phone or over snail mail as there is more of an expectation of…

> there is more of an expectation of privacy on those medium What does the "p" in "pm" stand for?

Post by stinkbeetle » Wed, Mar 04, 2026, 11:43 AM UTC

trashb wrote: post #236

stinkbeetle wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling something controversial is a favorite propaganda technique employed by "news" outlets. It's another form of selective reporting and framing. It carries negative connotations, and has really no objective standard by which it can be wrong since you'll always find somebody against any issue. After you notice it, you'll notice it everywhere.

> It carries negative connotations Interesting I'm not a native English speaker but in news articles I have always interpreted "controversial" as meaning "under discussion" (perhaps even around a 50/50 divide) hence why they are writing an article about it. I feel it is the news outlet trying to justify why the topic is important to read about since most people reading it will interpret the issue at hand as having a…

Post by szmarczak » Wed, Mar 04, 2026, 11:50 AM UTC

mr_mitm wrote: post #246

szmarczak wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if the server operator was malicious, they could just push different client-side JavaScript Same as with OS updates, browser updates, dependencies used by the OS, dependencies used by the browser. Also you can run malicious software such as keyloggers and you're compromised. That argument doesn't mean E2E (even web based) is snake oil. Browsers just give you more points of failure.

The difference is: in web based cryptography, you get the cipher text and the code to decrypt it from the same source. Hijacking OS updates is arguably much harder than hijacking one particular web server, and there is pretty much no effective defense against malicious OS updates.