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

WhatsApp banned on House staffers' devices

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 161 posts

Re: WhatsApp banned on House staffers' devices

#41

Post by Marsymars »

theodric wrote: post #25

When I was at unnamed major financial institution, we were ordered to stop using WhatsApp, but it had nothing to do with security and everything to do with avoiding even the possibility of the appearance of backroom dealing or production avoidance in the event of subpoena. Maybe the truth has more to do with that, or maybe not, what do I know, who are all you people anyway, and why am I posting here?

WhatsApp also feels... tonally weird to use at a serious company, like in the same way it would feel weird to be using snapchat for team meetings.

Re: WhatsApp banned on House staffers' devices

#42

Post by mattnewton »

linotype wrote: post #34
nicce wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also Government: uses Israel-backdoored custom Signal

What source do you have for that?

They used it in view of press cameras, many articles about this but here’s the first one from Google for me: https://www.404media.co/mike-waltz-accidentally-reveals-obsc...

Re: WhatsApp banned on House staffers' devices

#43

Post by jandrewrogers »

> "Messages on WhatsApp are end-to-end encrypted by default, meaning only the recipients and not even WhatsApp can see them."

The handling and metadata around encrypted messages is nearly as exploitable as the actual message contents. End-to-end encryption is necessary but not sufficient. The infrastructure has to be designed to minimize risk of other forms of exploitive analysis as well but in the case of WhatsApp that is essentially their business model.

Re: WhatsApp banned on House staffers' devices

#44

Post by ceejayoz »

Tijdreiziger wrote: post #20
seethishat wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just call, email or txt. Signal is only as secure as the device it runs on. Cell Phones are not secure. They are blackboxes and probably track you and may have built-in backdoors (only to be used to catch 'real' criminals), etc. The idea that you can turn a device like that into some form of secure communication platform by installing an app is not realistic.

Yeah, but the location of your next pizza party probably isn’t a state secret either.

It is if the party's in the Situation Room at 3am.

https://www.fastcompany.com/91352935/pentagon-pizza-index-th...

Re: WhatsApp banned on House staffers' devices

#45

Post by godelski »

v5v3 wrote: post #12

Government: Zuck put a backdoor in WhatsApp or we will put you in a blacksite UFC ring and beat you up. Also Government: WhatsApp has a backdoor. Don't use it.

Also government: installed special version of Signal that includes a backdoor (logs)

People: don't use Signal! It has a back door! Instead, use Telegram, it doesn't have encryption by default and is highly suspect of a foreign adversary

Also people: "I'll just send copies of all my messages to the government because they have my data anyways"

Re: WhatsApp banned on House staffers' devices

#46

Post by LgLasagnaModel »

Marsymars wrote: post #41
theodric wrote: post #25

When I was at unnamed major financial institution, we were ordered to stop using WhatsApp, but it had nothing to do with security and everything to do with avoiding even the possibility of the appearance of backroom dealing or production avoidance in the event of subpoena. Maybe the truth has more to do with that, or maybe not, what do I know, who are all you people anyway, and why am I posting here?

WhatsApp also feels... tonally weird to use at a serious company, like in the same way it would feel weird to be using snapchat for team meetings.

Totally agree. Now let me go play with this model I got off of Hugging Face

Re: WhatsApp banned on House staffers' devices

#47

Post by snickerbockers »

femiagbabiaka wrote: post #30
snickerbockers wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He did say last year he was going to make this the most open and transparent administration in US history. What other administration would grant a hostile journalist an inside look at the planning and execution of an airstrike? Promises made, promises kept.

"hostile"

The article itself commented on how ironic it is that of all the journalists they could have invited to the chat, it was one who has been highly critical of the president and not some sycophant who might have kept it a secret or turned it into a puff piece like what I just did except without the sarcasm.

Re: WhatsApp banned on House staffers' devices

#48

Post by latexr »

gruez wrote: post #16
v5v3 wrote: post #12

Government: Zuck put a backdoor in WhatsApp or we will put you in a blacksite UFC ring and beat you up. Also Government: WhatsApp has a backdoor. Don't use it.

>Government: Zuck put a backdoor in WhatsApp or we will put you in a blacksite UFC ring and beat you up. Source? >Also Government: WhatsApp has a backdoor. Don't use it. If "zuck" is really in the pocket of the US government, why should they worry about their own backdoors?

> If "zuck" is really in the pocket of the US government, why should they worry about their own backdoors?

Have you ever watched a Saturday morning cartoon? Minions betray their masters all the time. An effective evil overlord doesn’t underestimate their lackey’s capacity for duplicity and betrayal at a pivotal moment.

The most fun may even appreciate the gall: https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/The_Nagus_(episode)#:~:...

Re: WhatsApp banned on House staffers' devices

#49

Post by dijit »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #43

> "Messages on WhatsApp are end-to-end encrypted by default, meaning only the recipients and not even WhatsApp can see them." The handling and metadata around encrypted messages is nearly as exploitable as the actual message contents. End-to-end encryption is necessary but not sufficient. The infrastructure has to be designed to minimize risk of other forms of exploitive analysis as well but in the case of WhatsApp t…

If the network controls the endpoints; then E2EE is meaningless.

Re: WhatsApp banned on House staffers' devices

#50

Post by dietr1ch »

godelski wrote: post #45
v5v3 wrote: post #12

Government: Zuck put a backdoor in WhatsApp or we will put you in a blacksite UFC ring and beat you up. Also Government: WhatsApp has a backdoor. Don't use it.

Also government: installed special version of Signal that includes a backdoor (logs) People: don't use Signal! It has a back door! Instead, use Telegram, it doesn't have encryption by default and is highly suspect of a foreign adversary Also people: "I'll just send copies of all my messages to the government because they have my data anyways"

[flagged]
Post reply on HN