Live data from Hacker News

What is traceability and why does WhatsApp oppose it?

faq.whatsapp.com

31–40 of 120 posts

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

#31

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.

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

#32
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…

No need to break end to end encryption, they already control both ends. And the unencrypted backups

If they are claiming E2EE then they can't admit anything like this if they are to avoid having to produce message content to law enforcement. So for this debate it doesn't much matter if the E2EE is actually bogus.

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

#33
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…

Metadata I imagine? e.g. who is person X communicating with, when are they active, etc. Could be extremely useful if you discover someone unreachable abroad is coordinating with people within your jurisdiction.

I’d add account details (including profile pic), platforms being used, IP addresses, and linked accounts (including phone #) to that list. E2E protects your messages from interception, but literally everything else is fair game.

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

#34
post #24
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean 'allowed' (Im not being snarky, honestly curious please take the question as not an attack)? The creators just sold it, private company, private service they could have sold it to anyone they wanted. I think in hindsight they regret selling it to FB, but it's really hard to turn down billions of dollars.

Have you heard about antitrust laws? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law These types of laws exist to prevent monopolies being created after a M&A. Whatsapp's acquisition was in fact investigated and approved both by relevant commissions in US and EU: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

Right but I didnt see anything in this acquisition that would trigger antitrust (WhatsApp only, I did see issues with Instagram). And independent messaging app that didnt have ads seems like a safe purchase from a legal standpoint. That is why I asked the OP why he was surprised it was allowed.

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

#35
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean 'allowed' (Im not being snarky, honestly curious please take the question as not an attack)? The creators just sold it, private company, private service they could have sold it to anyone they wanted. I think in hindsight they regret selling it to FB, but it's really hard to turn down billions of dollars.

M&A is regulated, it's not a totally free market. If company A buys company B, the government allowed them to do so. There are plenty of scenarios where they won't.

I agree with that but a independent messaging app seems perfectly safe for FB to purchase. Instagram a little different but I never saw the government being concerned or potentially not allow this one to go through. That is why I was curious about the OPs perspective because maybe they did see something (not counting hindsight and that FB is a terrible company, but only in the moment)

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

#37

Slightly off-topic, but for European readers: Is how Facebook is trying to off-load cookie control onto the user's browser configuration anything close to compliant with law? This is the only instance of a company I have seen not bothering with 'Accept' vs some other complicated choice dialog (and I only saw this because I was annoyed by WhatsApp forcing the TOS change and, lo, they seem to be forcing 'Allow all' for…

[deleted]

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

#38
post #14

It's such a shame that Facebook was allowed to buy WhatsApp (and Instagram). WhatsApp itself seems truly pro-privacy, but that counts for diddly-squat when it's owned by Facebook.

What do you mean 'allowed' (Im not being snarky, honestly curious please take the question as not an attack)? The creators just sold it, private company, private service they could have sold it to anyone they wanted. I think in hindsight they regret selling it to FB, but it's really hard to turn down billions of dollars.

The thing is that facebook buying whatsapp was clearly an anti-competitive move, the same way as when they bought instagram.

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

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No need to break end to end encryption, they already control both ends. And the unencrypted backups

iMessage operates much on the same principals.

Is this a pun about "principal" referring to the person suspected of commuting a crime, or merely a Freudian typo?
Post reply on HN