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

What is traceability and why does WhatsApp oppose it?

faq.whatsapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 120 posts

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

#91

Post by edgyquant »

Koenvh wrote: post #52
Ellipse0934 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most political systems tend to converge into a two-party system. I think the internet has made people more vocal but access to opposing and nuanced viewpoints has made a lot of people grey. I know that's the case for me, not sure if it encapsulates the majority.

Do you have a source for that? Coming from a country where there are 16 different parties in parliament (the Netherlands), neighboured by two countries which each have at least five parties in parliament (Belgium and Germany), I find that statement difficult to believe.

To be fair the Netherlands is a unique republic dating back so far that even Louis XIV complained that any opinion held is represented in The Hague.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/439669?seq=1

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

#92

Post by foolinaround »

jace wrote: post #89
foolinaround wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there have been atleast 2 instances in the past few months where Indian govt agencies were able to release whatsapp messages of their opponents. It is safe to say that if you are doing anything remotely of interest to the govt, you should not be using this tool.

That happens by confiscating the phone. The US fifth amendment doesn't apply in India. Anything on a device isn't safe from a police search.

that is possible, but not what happened here.

the entities affected were powerful in their own right, just happened to be in the opposition to the central govt in one case, and in another, a top media personality in opposition to Mumbai's state govt/police machinery.

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

#93

Post by ytpete »

dt3ft wrote: post #39
elzbardico wrote: post #36

Gonna start using plain old letters. At least the government needs a court order to open it.

Don't be so sure they even have to open it... ( https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/scientists-read-300-year-l... )

That kind of "search" might still need a warrant. For example, there was a court decision some years ago which determined that using IR cameras to detect marijuana grow lights inside a home requires a warrant, since people have an expectation of privacy that no one can see through their walls.

IANAL so I'm not sure whether expectations of privacy for letters are legally as strong as they are your own home, but it certainly seems possible...

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

#94

Post by edgyquant »

pmontra wrote: post #31
axiosgunnar wrote: post #3

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.

The idea is that you can both defeat the common enemy leaving only one fight afterwards. It doesn’t mean you’re actually bffs with the enemy of your enemy

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

#95

Post by smichel17 »

verytrivial wrote: post #13

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…

Telling my browser my privacy preferences and then requiring sites to follow that seems like the holy grail of privacy to me. Next up: Do Not Track. If it's set, skip the dialog and follow my preference instead. Along with that, browsers should make it into a drop-down with [do not track | do track | do not express a preference], so that people who prefer personalization also don't need to suffer the dialogs.

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

#96

Post by nashashmi »

baby wrote: post #64
nashashmi wrote: post #6

I dont see the argument posed here. If a user sends a new message to 2nd user, and 2nd user forwards the message to a government agent, and agent asks for the origin of the message, there is a way to both encrypt the message and trace it. It's called convergent encryption. And I thought this was how whatsapp was tracking messages that were forwarded multiple times. By checking their base hash.

Interesting, do you have resources to learn more on that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_encryption

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

#97

Post by iggldiggl »

Havoc wrote: post #83

WTF is going on with their cookie dialog? Surely that's not even remotely legal? There is just agree and a second dialog with guidance on how to clear cookies per browser (???) and a second agree button. That's not even an attempt at a dark pattern nudging you towards one option...it's just do you agree or do you agree. Hard to trust companies that think that's how consent works... https://imgur.com/a/Ya1XBvG

Facebook's own dialogue is relatively similar – you do get one option for Facebook's own advertising tracking and another for every third-party function mushed together (no differentiation between functional, analytical, advertising, etc.), but in the end no matter what you choose there's still only one 'Accept cookies' button.

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

#98

Post by valarauko »

mind-blight wrote: post #79
eptcyka wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my humble opinion, this is partly why most modern democracies have reduced themselves into two party theater. Much more time is spent arguing optics and deciding who's truly the scotsman in the current crop of leaders than what policies are best suited to achieve goals the electorate might be interested in reaching.

The two party system is usually a side effect of first past the post voting systems. Since elections only allow voters to choose one candidate, a third party candidate end up splitting the vote and taking votes away from the candidate who is closest to their political stance. People see that and decide the rational choice is to vote for the candidate that they hate the least with the highest chance of driving, and th…

> third parties merge to form coalitions that actually have a chance of winning. Rinse and repeat until you only have two parties.

I would suggest that this probably isn't the case. Since there is no requirement for a majority vote share in first past the post, the same results can be achieved by splitting parties. The parties have more targeted appeal, just enough to squeak past the other parties. This is the case in India, for example.

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

#99

Post by valarauko »

armagon wrote: post #75
Ellipse0934 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most political systems tend to converge into a two-party system. I think the internet has made people more vocal but access to opposing and nuanced viewpoints has made a lot of people grey. I know that's the case for me, not sure if it encapsulates the majority.

Widely used voting systems converge on two parties. The worst offender is the first-past-the-post system. Instant-run-off voting is better, but still converges on two parties. Wish I had a good citation for you, but I do have an try-it-yourself guide on voting systems to link to: https://ncase.me/ballot/

India has FPTP as well, where the tendency has usually been in the opposite direction - splitting parties.

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

#100

Post by MomoXenosaga »

Koenvh wrote: post #53
Ellipse0934 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most political systems tend to converge into a two-party system. I think the internet has made people more vocal but access to opposing and nuanced viewpoints has made a lot of people grey. I know that's the case for me, not sure if it encapsulates the majority.

Do you have a source for that? Most of Western Europe has more than two parties in parliament, thus I find that hard to believe.

Yes this is more a "British Empire" thing. See Australia, Canada, India etc. They copied the English political system.
Post reply on HN