WhatsApp sends Cease and Desists for apps that use native Android APIs • Hacker News Board

Re: WhatsApp sends Cease and Desists for apps that use native Android APIs

#91

Post by Freak_NL » Thu, Jul 05, 2018, 4:22 PM UTC

furyg3 wrote: post #57

Freak_NL wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sucks. Here in the Netherlands, WhatsApp is used by the vast majority of people. The holdouts (like me) consist of people who don't want to deal with smartphones (some elderly, some who deliberately avoid them because of addictive behaviour), or who own a smartphone, but don't agree with WhatsApp's terms of use (essentially paying for access with your data). Not using WhatsApp has consequences. We sometimes miss o…

To be fair, my Signal list of contacts keeps growing here in NL. I do some light proselytizing, but it seems to be moving along on it's own. Hopefully Arjan Lubach (Holland's Jon Oliver) will do a hit-peice on WhatsApp like he did on Facebook at some point in the future. I'd like to delete WhatsApp, but any conversation I have in Signal vs WhatsApp is a small victory that I'll take. If at some point more than 50% of…

Signal inherits some of WhatsApp's limitations though. It requires that the primary device be an Android or IOS based smartphone with an internet connection; and your identifier is your telephone number, which has the same privacy implications as WhatsApp. With the centralised server model choosing Signal over WhatsApp is basically betting that Open Whisper Systems won't monetize your data, or won't be bought out by some bigger fish.

Why can't I use a messaging service from my desktop without having a smartphone with pre-approved operating system nearby?

Re: WhatsApp sends Cease and Desists for apps that use native Android APIs

#92

Post by beagle3 » Thu, Jul 05, 2018, 4:22 PM UTC

tabs_masterrace wrote: post #46

Remember when Instant Messaging protocols used to be open? When there was a multitude of clients for any given service to chose from? Now IM has left its early adopter stage and became an integral part of everybody's life, but in doing so we became stuck with 100% proprietary WhatsApp. Not undeserved, it works very well with billions of users, and is probably the most usable IM service ever made. But it became so big…

AOL did their best to lock everyone out of Oscar/AIM, such as requiring a checksum of (a random part of) the .exe -- and they were the WhatsApp-equivalent-800-lbs-gorilla of the time.

(And that's mostly why it didn't matter what anyone else did). In fact, the closest thing resembling an IM standard, XMPP, was chosen not on technical merit, but rather becase the IETF group set up to standardize was (essentially) sabotaged by the members each driving their own agenda -- and after 3 years with nothing to show, when the working group disbanded, Jabber -- which was mediocre, but actually had working servers and clients -- was adopted as a standard.

I was tangentially involved with that process at the time, it was a shitshow; I would guess that's common for many standardization processes, but to my young and naive eyes it looked almost unbelievable.

Re: WhatsApp sends Cease and Desists for apps that use native Android APIs

#93

Post by pkulak » Thu, Jul 05, 2018, 4:26 PM UTC

Freak_NL wrote: post #23

devit wrote: post #21

The real problem here is that after this stunt I'd like to completely stop using Whatsapp and switch to something else instead, but I can't because other people use Whatsapp and communicating with other people is essential to me. The problem is there no laws to stop whoever becomes the lucky recipient of such a network effect from doing whatever they want. Instead antitrust law needs to be expanded to consider networ…

It sucks. Here in the Netherlands, WhatsApp is used by the vast majority of people. The holdouts (like me) consist of people who don't want to deal with smartphones (some elderly, some who deliberately avoid them because of addictive behaviour), or who own a smartphone, but don't agree with WhatsApp's terms of use (essentially paying for access with your data). Not using WhatsApp has consequences. We sometimes miss o…

Still sounds better than the US where everyone still uses SMS. You can buy an iPhone and accidentally use iMessage, but that's about the only option.

Re: WhatsApp sends Cease and Desists for apps that use native Android APIs

#94

Post by msbarnett » Thu, Jul 05, 2018, 4:43 PM UTC

pkulak wrote: post #93

Freak_NL wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sucks. Here in the Netherlands, WhatsApp is used by the vast majority of people. The holdouts (like me) consist of people who don't want to deal with smartphones (some elderly, some who deliberately avoid them because of addictive behaviour), or who own a smartphone, but don't agree with WhatsApp's terms of use (essentially paying for access with your data). Not using WhatsApp has consequences. We sometimes miss o…

Still sounds better than the US where everyone still uses SMS. You can buy an iPhone and accidentally use iMessage, but that's about the only option.

> Still sounds better than the US where everyone still uses SMS.

In what possible way does "everyone is de facto forced to use the only permitted client of a proprietary platform and agree to whatever terrible terms Facebook, a surveillance platform, dictates" sound better than "everyone still uses an open standard not solely controlled by a private surveillance company, to which any number of different clients can interconnect peacefully"?

Re: WhatsApp sends Cease and Desists for apps that use native Android APIs

#95

Post by jolmg » Thu, Jul 05, 2018, 4:48 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #73

devit wrote: post #21

The real problem here is that after this stunt I'd like to completely stop using Whatsapp and switch to something else instead, but I can't because other people use Whatsapp and communicating with other people is essential to me. The problem is there no laws to stop whoever becomes the lucky recipient of such a network effect from doing whatever they want. Instead antitrust law needs to be expanded to consider networ…

> The problem is there no laws to stop whoever becomes the lucky recipient of such a network effect from doing whatever they want. There's the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Quoting from Wikipedia: > Since communications services exhibit network effects and positive externalities, new entrants would face barriers to entry if they could not interconnect their networks with those of the incumbent carriers. Thus, anoth…

Sounds like it goes in the right direction. So why isn't this being applied to whatsapp? Are they not considered a carrier?

Wording it a bit weird, though. "interconnect their networks with one another"? If whatsapp made their client authenticate with their services so that their servers only work with their client and vice versa, would waiting for requests from would-be competitors to give them special access be sufficient to comply?

I wish a law would force the use of an open protocol for all services. Let anyone make their client, and let those clients connect to any server.

Re: WhatsApp sends Cease and Desists for apps that use native Android APIs

#96

Post by reitanqild » Thu, Jul 05, 2018, 4:48 PM UTC

ReverseCold wrote: post #70

Fnoord wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To participate in some parts of society WhatsApp is now a de facto requirement. A whole nation blindly agrees to whatever terms of use Facebook drafts. Same if you don't have a Facebook account. Speaking of which, WhatsApp was the defacto IM standard before it was bought by Facebook. Previously it was MSN Messenger (or whatever it is called these days. Skype?) and that was horrible as well. XMMP was at least federa…

> There are some people who push for an alternative called Telegram, which uses home brew cryptography instead of established standards. No, it might as well have no end-end cryptography. The crypto is only enabled for "Secret Chats" and Calls, and I have never seen anyone actually use the secret chat functionality. Using a secret chat limits you to one device and blocks features like bots, so most people don't want…

>> There are some people who push for an alternative called Telegram, which uses home brew cryptography instead of established standards.

> No, it might as well have no end-end cryptography.

Parent says cryptography, not end-to-end cryptography.

Cryptography provides value even if it is not end-to-end (it limits the attack surface).

There's a lot to say about Telegram, but can please stick to the facts?

Re: WhatsApp sends Cease and Desists for apps that use native Android APIs

#97

Post by reitanqild » Thu, Jul 05, 2018, 4:51 PM UTC

Canada wrote: post #85

arkadiytehgraet wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you actually seen the implementation of the WhatsApp clients on iOS / Android? How can you say that the data is E2EE when there are no sources, no verifiable builds, nothing but just statements that "yes, we do use E2EE"? On the contrary, you have open protocol with verifiable implementation and available sources of the Telegram client for mobile platforms; yet you automatically disregard it just because it is n…

Yes, and Telegram being open allows us to confirm with absolute certainty that it uses no E2EE by default. We don't have the WhatsApp source code, but we don't have to do a lot of reverse engineering to see that it uses this: https://github.com/signalapp/libsignal-protocol-c But yeah, you're right, it could be sending plaintext or deliberately leaking keys somewhere. Unless someone really reverses it we won't know it…

> Unless someone really reverses it we won't know it doesn't as surely as we know that Telegram doesn't use encryption at all.

Telegram uses encryption by default, just not E2EE.

You can criticise them for

- using their own crypto

- misleading advertising regarding the quality of said crypto

... and possibly more, but I still suggest we try to stick to the facts.

Re: WhatsApp sends Cease and Desists for apps that use native Android APIs

#98

Post by jsmthrowaway » Thu, Jul 05, 2018, 5:08 PM UTC

msbarnett wrote: post #94

pkulak wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still sounds better than the US where everyone still uses SMS. You can buy an iPhone and accidentally use iMessage, but that's about the only option.

> Still sounds better than the US where everyone still uses SMS. In what possible way does "everyone is de facto forced to use the only permitted client of a proprietary platform and agree to whatever terrible terms Facebook, a surveillance platform, dictates" sound better than "everyone still uses an open standard not solely controlled by a private surveillance company, to which any number of different clients can i…

None of the adjectives nor concepts you have applied to SMS apply, including the assertion that any number of clients can interconnect peacefully, that it is open, that it is a standard, that the steering of the technology is not actually done by the private surveillance companies you’ve mysteriously overlooked, not to mention how SMS is easier for law enforcement to acquire than a pack of cigarettes, because the carrier is sitting there waiting for a warrant on account of not angering the government that, you know, gave them spectrum and allowed them to exist in the first place.

Aside from all of that, good analysis.

Aware iPhone owners literally have the “oh, they’re green, looks like I have yet another plaintext compromise in my life and they’ll never figure out Signal” conversation with themselves every time they exchange numbers with someone new, and I’ve met more than one person who has remarked negatively to the person’s face that they are using SMS, including in a dating scenario as a dealbreaker. You might be the only person who likes it, aside from misguided parts of the Android community that praise SMS roughly like you do when discussing the lack of something like iMessage in that ecosystem, all without realizing the surveillance calculus you’ve correctly established is the real reason the carriers tie Google’s hands (even beyond Google going through messaging systems like socks).

Re: WhatsApp sends Cease and Desists for apps that use native Android APIs

#99

Post by sievebrain » Thu, Jul 05, 2018, 5:31 PM UTC

mtgx wrote: post #32

devit wrote: post #21

The real problem here is that after this stunt I'd like to completely stop using Whatsapp and switch to something else instead, but I can't because other people use Whatsapp and communicating with other people is essential to me. The problem is there no laws to stop whoever becomes the lucky recipient of such a network effect from doing whatever they want. Instead antitrust law needs to be expanded to consider networ…

Anti-trust laws need to stop obviously dominant players from buying up competitors. Facebook should have never been allowed to buy WhatsApp and Instagram - especially Instagram. It would've been so much better if Instagram got to be the main independent competitor (or even purchased by another company) to Facebook, than Facebook owning it. Facebook will keep making tens of billions of dollars in the coming years, eve…

That might just mean those companies are never created at all. A huge number of sv "companies" have no business plan beyond acquisition.

Re: WhatsApp sends Cease and Desists for apps that use native Android APIs

#100

Post by sievebrain » Thu, Jul 05, 2018, 5:35 PM UTC

pmontra wrote: post #5

> This letter is not a complete list of all of WhatsApp's rights you might have violated. Fortunately they added this statement because (IANAL) I believe those developers didn't perform any of the activities listed in the bullet points of the letter. However all of third party WhatsApp automation is a gray area. Everybody knows that WhatsApp doesn't welcome it (I really don't know why) and they have the money to liti…

API+messaging is a spam nightmare. Client integrity is a very powerful antispam technique, I used to use it to great effect. Given the near zero value and popularity of legit bots I'd have made the same decision in their shoes