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

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

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 458 posts

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

#391

Post by chimeracoder »

dvngnt_ wrote: post #357
RobotToaster wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tiktok has direct messages, they don't even call them private. It's better that they're honest about this, nobody should believe for a second that WhatsApp or FB messages are truly E2EE. DM on social media shouldn't be used for anything remotely private. It's a convenience feature, nothing more.

> nobody should believe for a second that WhatsApp or FB messages are truly E2EE. Meta still tracks analytics which isn't good for privacy, but I'm not aware of any news of them or 3rd parties reading messages without consent of one of the 1st parties? Signal is probably much better though

> Meta still tracks analytics which isn't good for privacy, but I'm not aware of any news of them or 3rd parties reading messages without consent of one of the 1st parties? Signal is probably much better though

Correct. WhatsApp uses the Signal protocol, and there is zero evidence of them reading message contents except with the consent of one of the users involved (such as a user reporting a message for moderation purposes).

(And before anyone takes issue with that last qualifier, consent from at least one party is the bar for secure communications on any platform, Signal included. If you don't trust the person you are communicating with, no amount of encryption will protect you).

Discovering a backdoor in WhatsApp for Facebook/Meta to read messages would be a career-defining finding for a security researcher, so it's not like this is some topic nobody has ever thought to investigate.

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

#392

Post by mihaaly »

Traster wrote: post #178

I think this is... fine? Am I just totally naive. I think it's fine to say "You don't really have privacy on this app" - as long as there are relatively good options of apps that do have privacy (and I think there are). TikTok is really a public by default type of social media, there's not much idea of mutual following or closed groups. So sure, you don't have privacy on tiktok, if you want it you can move to snapcha…

I am fine TikTok remaining that 'we watch what you are doing' platforms. Those do not care can gave that if they wish, I do not mind.

But bullshitting about it is making users more safe, that is ... bullshit! Worse that that, distorting public opinion, intentionally fooling the gullible.

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

#393

Post by keybored »

Traster wrote: post #178

I think this is... fine? Am I just totally naive. I think it's fine to say "You don't really have privacy on this app" - as long as there are relatively good options of apps that do have privacy (and I think there are). TikTok is really a public by default type of social media, there's not much idea of mutual following or closed groups. So sure, you don't have privacy on tiktok, if you want it you can move to snapcha…

That it’s fine because it’s the CCP (commies see all) is a new one.

It’s at best subpar for the same reasons as if it was the usual Silicon Valley spyware.

I could leave well enough alone. But why? Because there are choices? There are five other brands of cereal that do not have 25% sugar? I’d rather be a negative nancy towards these on-purpose addictive, privacy-leaking attention pimp apps.

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

#394

Post by hogwasher »

nindalf wrote: post #380
pixl97 wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm not aware of any news of them Yet. Until they say "We delete these messages after X time and they are gone gone, and we're not reading them" Assume they are reading them, or will read them and the information just hasn't got out yet. I mean we keep finding more and more cases where companies like FB and Google were reading messages years ago and it wasn't till now we found out.

> We delete these messages after X time They never had the plaintext of the messages in the first place, so they don't need to delete them. That's what end-to-end encrypted means.

Whether Facebook/Meta can read the plain text of the messages or not depends on whether that encryption is "zero knowledge" or not, aka: does Facebook generate and retain the private encryption key, or does it stay on the users' devices only, never visible to Facebook or stored on Facebook servers?

In the former case, Facebook can decrypt the messages at will, and the e2ee only protects against hackers, not Facebook itself, nor against law enforcement, since if Facebook has the decryption key they can be legally compelled to hand it over (and probably would voluntarily, going by their history).

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

#395

Post by keybored »

debazel wrote: post #39
xeckr wrote: post #22

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

Children are just too effect of a tool when building a surveillance state. We should have banned children from owning open computers a long time ago just like we do with Alcohol, Driving licenses, etc. Instead children would own special devices that are locked down and tagged with a "underage" flag when interacting with online services, while adults could continue as normal. We already heavily restrict the freedom of…

The most important principle in the modern age is the freedom to prey on wallets. You can’t give parents tools to conveniently restrict what their children do. Impressionable minds ought to live in a lord of the flies state where they are bombarded with stuff to nag to their parents about and give them FOMO about what their friends have that they don’t have.

That’s why children must be free.

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

#396

Post by keybored »

tayo42 wrote: post #51
debazel wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Children are just too effect of a tool when building a surveillance state. We should have banned children from owning open computers a long time ago just like we do with Alcohol, Driving licenses, etc. Instead children would own special devices that are locked down and tagged with a "underage" flag when interacting with online services, while adults could continue as normal. We already heavily restrict the freedom of…

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not

It’s about 15 years ahead of its time. Too enlightened for most.

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

#397

Post by ranyume »

nandomrumber wrote: post #76
ranyume wrote: post #20

This might be off-topic but on-topic about child safety... but I'm surprised people are being myopic about age verification. Age verification should be banned, but people ignore that nowadays most widely used online services already ask for your age and act accordingly: twitter, youtube, google in general, any online marketplace. They already got so much data on their users and optimize their algorithms for those gro…

> people are concerned about their children's DMs but are not concerned about what companies serves them and what they do with their data. Hogwash. Where are these mythical people who aren’t concerned with both?

> Where are these mythical people who aren’t concerned with both?

People don't care about "what companies serve them". They only care if the children see sexual content (or things considered deviant). Once sexual and deviant content is filtered, they're happy to give away their children's development to the company's algos.

In effect, the people don't want to concern themselves with what their children consume, unless they're outraged by things normally taboo in their age group. Besides, if everyone is in it "it's not that wrong". They seek reactive entertainment rather than proactive engagement in their children's development.

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

#398

Post by hogwasher »

oarsinsync wrote: post #260
giancarlostoro wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are a grown adult and dont do research on “messaging apps” (which Tik Tok is not) then thats really on you.

If you are a grown adult and don't do research on " " then that's really on you. Unfortunately, this doesn't scale.

It definitely ignores that many people don't have time. If someone is working over 40 hours per week, plus maybe doing unpaid labor taking care of kids or elders, where are people supposed to find the time and energy to brush up on a million different topics they don't even know they might not know enough about? Especially if they might also have medical issues, or hobbies, or want to have any time at all to relax.

Obviously, one way to improve the situation would be to make sure people are paid fairly and not overworked and have access to good and affordable or free childcare and elder-care and medical care, but corporations don't want that either. If anything, they're incentivised to disempower workers and keep them uninformed, and to get as much time out of them as they can for as little money as possible.

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

#399

Post by hogwasher »

johnisgood wrote: post #361
red-iron-pine wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

80% of the population does not and will never do that level of deep dive on apps same discussion for any form of technology be it TVs or changing their car's oil the deliberate app-store-ification of all things computer is also designed to keep people from asking those questions -- just download in and install, pleb. it's why the Zoomers can't email attachments or change file types: all of the computers they grew up…

And I think because of all the handholding we are left worse off.

Most people couldn't tell you how their car works, at least not enough to fix it. Is that handholding, too?

People can't be knowledgable about everything. There's just too much information in the world, and too many different skills that could be learned, and not enough time.

A carpenter can rely on power tools without understanding fully how the tools work, and it's fine, as long as the tools are made to safe standards and the user understands basic safety instructions (e.g. wear protective eyewear).

To me, making sure that apps don't screw with people, even if they don't understand how the apps work, is roughly the equivalent of making sure power drills are made safely so they don't explode in peoples' hands.

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

#400

Post by hogwasher »

acheron wrote: post #370
smugglerFlynn wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as long as there are relatively good options of apps that do have privacy (and I think there are) Once you have enormous network effect like TikTok has, you don't really have any free selection of alternative apps. You are free to use one, but you will be the only sad user over there. Regulations are needed that would force large platforms like TikTok and Instagram to enable federation, opening them up to actual co…

“Will we ever end the MySpace monopoly?” > MySpace is well on the way to becoming what economists call a "natural monopoly". Users have invested so much social capital in putting up data about themselves it is not worth their changing sites, especially since every new user that MySpace attracts adds to its value as a network of interacting people. > "In social networking, there is a huge advantage to have scale. You…

Sure, but then everyone moved to Facebook. The monopolist changed, but not the monopolistic market and the lack of consumer choice.

And nobody gained privacy in the process (I rather think everyone lost even more of it).

The situation currently permits only a tiny number of winning companies at a time, and the userbase is locked in even as the site becomes wildly unpopular, until some threshold of discontent is reached, and then everyone moves, and then that new site also enshittifies and the cycle repeats.

Federation is a mechanism whereby people would be able to actually choose providers as individuals and at any time, instead of having to wait years for a critical mass of upset people to build up and leave [current most popular social media site], and instead of being forced to go to [new most popular social media site].

Post reply on HN