Live data from Hacker News

WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

developers.facebook.com

91–100 of 152 posts

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#91
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://signal.org/blog/phone-number-privacy-usernames/ > Usernames simply allow you to initiate a connection on Signal without sharing your phone number > Starting soon, your phone number will no longer be visible to people you chat with on Signal, unless they have it in their phone’s contacts. You will also be able to configure a new privacy setting to limit who can find you by your phone number on Signal. And, you…

> unless they have it in their phone’s contacts Lol. Why should they be allowed to associate my phone with my signal handle even then. If i want them to know I'll tell them. > a new privacy setting to limit who can find you by your phone number on Signal Double lol. Limit is not disable. How about an option to "do not give my phone number to anyone, no matter what reason to pass it around you make up this week"? And…

As far as I can tell, "limit" will soon mean "disable". They just can't flip that switch yet given that legacy clients will not know what to do about "numberless contacts".

> do not get my phone number period

I'd also like that, but they apparently use phone numbers as a primary key for account recovery and identification (e.g. on a new device without the old one present), so that's probably very hard to change architecturally.

There are some interesting concepts of "identityless messengers", but this is inherently hard to do on mobile – at least the platform operator will always know which identities are clustered together on a given device if you want efficient push notification delivery over APNs/FCM.

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#92
post #5

There's something really appalling that I discovered lately and I can't believe there isn't enough uproar about it. Every attempt to talk about this gets ignored or buried (maybe by people who want this ""feature"" to be kept quiet) so I will take every opportunity on existing discussions about Facebook to bring it up: Facebook (and TikTok) store tracking data on iOS that the user CANNOT SEE and CANNOT DELETE: • It s…

> WHY does Apple, parading around as a pompous paragon of privacy, even allow this crap? Good alliteration. Apple doesn’t enforce what the app does with app data. Apple makes sure that if the app uses a platform API that is sensitive, it gets your opt-in (or prohibits the use of the API altogether). Apple makes sure that the app publishes a privacy nutrition label. But what the app does inside with whatever data you…

That would be a nice solution, but there is no "allow app to persist data beyond deletion/reinstall" user-grantable permission on iOS.

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#93
post #54
post #2

Why do all Meta websites intentionally break the back button? It makes me irrationally angry every time I visit facebook or instagram for how disrespectful it is, it's like it springs a trap where I'm not allowed to leave in the browser tab I arrived in.

A random feature I didn't know for too long is long pressing the back button, which opens a menu containig the last few locations. Typically that helps with sits who hijack the back button. Works also on desktop.

What I'd love is a crowdsourced database for known back button hijackers in e.g. Firefox: If too many people report a site as being broken that way, the back button API could be made opt-in for everybody in the site settings.

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#94
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm using Beeper with its Matrix bridges just fine

Wait list? Is that a secret society? Do I need two existing members to vouch for me?

No, it's just load management. They run a full matrix home server for all their users and a bunch of bridges.

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#95
post #80

> 7.5.1. Partner User Location. Any Partner Users that Partner Enlists or provides access to the Interoperable Messaging Services must be located and remain in the EEA. Without limiting Section 11 (Warranties), Partner represents and warrants that it will only (i) Enlist and (ii) enable access to the Interoperable Messaging Services by Partner Users that Partner independently validates are located in the European Eco…

This is so absurd. I think the previously often raised objections to interoperability were technically and economically mostly sound (federation is much harder to achieve in a secure way, thinking of key distribution, identifier verification etc.). Now overcoming all of these obstacles and then going the extra mile to implement geofencing (which also has tons of edge cases!) completely undoes that argument.

I don't really see why WhatsApp would care, because once you have developed the interoperability, audited the apps, and done all that, it doesn't really cost WhatsApp anything if a user is using that app. They lose no profit, doesn't cost their servers any more than their own client would, etc.

WhatsApp makes their money from the business clients/apps (which aren't covered under this, which I think is fine by the way).

So why care where a user is on the planet? I just don't see the business reason for this. Maybe I'm missing something?

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#96
post #95
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so absurd. I think the previously often raised objections to interoperability were technically and economically mostly sound (federation is much harder to achieve in a secure way, thinking of key distribution, identifier verification etc.). Now overcoming all of these obstacles and then going the extra mile to implement geofencing (which also has tons of edge cases!) completely undoes that argument.

I don't really see why WhatsApp would care, because once you have developed the interoperability, audited the apps, and done all that, it doesn't really cost WhatsApp anything if a user is using that app. They lose no profit, doesn't cost their servers any more than their own client would, etc. WhatsApp makes their money from the business clients/apps (which aren't covered under this, which I think is fine by the way…

The WhatsApp client does give Meta a window of opportunity to get data from users.

The data is otherwise E2E encrypted but when you see a link preview on WhatsApp Meta knows that.

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#97
post #96
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really see why WhatsApp would care, because once you have developed the interoperability, audited the apps, and done all that, it doesn't really cost WhatsApp anything if a user is using that app. They lose no profit, doesn't cost their servers any more than their own client would, etc. WhatsApp makes their money from the business clients/apps (which aren't covered under this, which I think is fine by the way…

The WhatsApp client does give Meta a window of opportunity to get data from users. The data is otherwise E2E encrypted but when you see a link preview on WhatsApp Meta knows that.

Do they actually do that? Because I'm not so sure that they do.

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#98
post #97
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The WhatsApp client does give Meta a window of opportunity to get data from users. The data is otherwise E2E encrypted but when you see a link preview on WhatsApp Meta knows that.

Do they actually do that? Because I'm not so sure that they do.

The preview sends a request to some server on a Facebook subdomain. I know because I was sniffing traffic on my phone without any Facebook app installed other than WhatsApp.

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#99
post #95
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so absurd. I think the previously often raised objections to interoperability were technically and economically mostly sound (federation is much harder to achieve in a secure way, thinking of key distribution, identifier verification etc.). Now overcoming all of these obstacles and then going the extra mile to implement geofencing (which also has tons of edge cases!) completely undoes that argument.

I don't really see why WhatsApp would care, because once you have developed the interoperability, audited the apps, and done all that, it doesn't really cost WhatsApp anything if a user is using that app. They lose no profit, doesn't cost their servers any more than their own client would, etc. WhatsApp makes their money from the business clients/apps (which aren't covered under this, which I think is fine by the way…

For one thing, they can't show ads in third-party clients. (I think they currently only do that in "stories" in their own client at the moment, but without competing clients, they always have the option to expand that.)

On the other hand, I could imagine their business messaging ambitions to be threatened by third-party clients: There's nothing stopping the vendors of these clients from undercutting Meta on business messaging rates.

And this is all assuming that third-party services couldn't provide their own business messaging services to first-party WhatsApp client users without paying Meta their list price. I don't know whether the DMA allows that, or if normal rates would still apply in that case.

Re: WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability

#100
post #98
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they actually do that? Because I'm not so sure that they do.

The preview sends a request to some server on a Facebook subdomain. I know because I was sniffing traffic on my phone without any Facebook app installed other than WhatsApp.

Okay, but do they actually use any data from that? What does the privacy policy say? Have any effects been observed beyond "uses a facebook domain" (e.g. you see ads on Facebook for a site you had in preview)? Is there functional reason for using that domain?
Post reply on HN