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

Meta Shuts Down End-to-End Encryption for Instagram Messaging

pcmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 235 posts

Re: Meta Shuts Down End-to-End Encryption for Instagram Messaging

#91

Post by danparsonson »

tardedmeme wrote: post #83
danparsonson wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry do you mean, that's how it works now, or, that's how you think it should work? Are you talking about Instagram or WA or something else? edit: misread your message; if you have two sessions active at the same time, then yes I would expect both sessions to receive the same messages.

What if you log into the app and then log out of the app and then log into the app again? Should you be able to see your messages? E2EE is a fail-secure design. In case of any doubt it deletes your private messages. When applied to this case I don't think the downside of constantly losing all your messages outweighs the upside of Facebook pretending they don't have a copy of all of them.

Are you asking for technical details about E2EE in messaging apps, or simply making the point that you don't like it? If you don't like it, then fine, you do you, however I would point out that we all accept some inconvenience in our lives as a trade off for improved security; the lock on my front door is inconvenient but I'd rather have it than not.

As to whether or not Meta have been lying about it, then that would be on-brand for them, but then what are they turning off if so? Or maybe the whole thing is theatre, and I should better disconnect from the internet altogether? I don't see the value in speculating about that.

Re: Meta Shuts Down End-to-End Encryption for Instagram Messaging

#92

Post by tptacek »

ryandrake wrote: post #81

It's too bad we fell so hard for centralization. In an alternate universe, messaging on the Internet could have been: 1. Alice's device has a publicly routable IP address with a domain name like alice.home.her.isp 2. Bob's device is has same qualities, using: bob.mobile.his.isp Then Alice can just open her chat app up, add bob@bob.mobile.his.isp and off they go. I mean we had UNIX's "talk" for how long but instead of…

Why is this any better? It doesn't solve any of the identity and end-to-end encryption problems centralized messengers do; it just changes the underlying connectivity model, which is the least interesting part of the system.

Re: Meta Shuts Down End-to-End Encryption for Instagram Messaging

#93

Post by B1FF_PSUVM »

ryandrake wrote: post #81

It's too bad we fell so hard for centralization. In an alternate universe, messaging on the Internet could have been: 1. Alice's device has a publicly routable IP address with a domain name like alice.home.her.isp 2. Bob's device is has same qualities, using: bob.mobile.his.isp Then Alice can just open her chat app up, add bob@bob.mobile.his.isp and off they go. I mean we had UNIX's "talk" for how long but instead of…

> now every chat message

"It hurts when I do that."

"Don't do that."

Re: Meta Shuts Down End-to-End Encryption for Instagram Messaging

#94

Post by tardedmeme »

danparsonson wrote: post #91
tardedmeme wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you log into the app and then log out of the app and then log into the app again? Should you be able to see your messages? E2EE is a fail-secure design. In case of any doubt it deletes your private messages. When applied to this case I don't think the downside of constantly losing all your messages outweighs the upside of Facebook pretending they don't have a copy of all of them.

Are you asking for technical details about E2EE in messaging apps, or simply making the point that you don't like it? If you don't like it, then fine, you do you, however I would point out that we all accept some inconvenience in our lives as a trade off for improved security; the lock on my front door is inconvenient but I'd rather have it than not. As to whether or not Meta have been lying about it, then that would…

I'm asking you about how you want the world to work.

Re: Meta Shuts Down End-to-End Encryption for Instagram Messaging

#95

Post by B1FF_PSUVM »

daniel_reetz wrote: post #31
chadgpt2 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Users generally do not believe Instagram is reading their chats. Source: I have had this conversation many, many times.

> do not believe Instagram is reading

Well, not when they had to pay people for it. Now, however ...

Re: Meta Shuts Down End-to-End Encryption for Instagram Messaging

#96

Post by mtlmtlmtlmtl »

yalok wrote: post #78
garciasn wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then a more reasonable response is: “we cannot as effectively monetize all of the data in our advertising platform disguised as another tool entirely unless we disable E2EE and we need to be able to allow not only ourselves but others to invade your privacy even more than we already do because it’s technologically difficult to do so when we encrypt your communications.”

it doesn't necessarily have to be tied to monetization & privacy directly. It may just be that ROI doesn't make sense: very few user out there truly care about (or even understand) E2EE, for quite some users it creates an inconvenience & support incidents (harder to move from device to device, forgot your passphrase - lost your history, new joiners to a group chat don't see previous history, etc), it requires a signi…

It doesn't have to be, but that's not really an argument for claiming it isn't. Considering how deeply embedded privacy violation is in Meta's corporate DNA, is there any reason other than hilariously naïve and inexplicably charitable, hypothetical speculation to believe this is not motivated by more privacy violation for profit, just like literally every single thing Meta has done in the entire history of the company? No? Didn't think so.

Re: Meta Shuts Down End-to-End Encryption for Instagram Messaging

#97

Post by bnteke »

alex_young wrote: post #72

Isn't this really about "protecting" minors using Instagram? If they allow E2E encryption, they can't scan for CSAM or do other monitoring stuff effectively, so they can't provide a "safe" place for minors. Obviously the right answer is kids shouldn't be exposed to social media at all, but more eyeballs is more important than our kids.

cmon bud this is never what it's really about

Re: Meta Shuts Down End-to-End Encryption for Instagram Messaging

#98

Post by bawolff »

ryandrake wrote: post #81

It's too bad we fell so hard for centralization. In an alternate universe, messaging on the Internet could have been: 1. Alice's device has a publicly routable IP address with a domain name like alice.home.her.isp 2. Bob's device is has same qualities, using: bob.mobile.his.isp Then Alice can just open her chat app up, add bob@bob.mobile.his.isp and off they go. I mean we had UNIX's "talk" for how long but instead of…

If people spent half the time they do wishing for decentralized messaging working on the actual problems with it, we would have decentralized messaging.

Re: Meta Shuts Down End-to-End Encryption for Instagram Messaging

#99

Post by deaddodo »

glenngillen wrote: post #63
fragmede wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. "You have to unlock your iphone first" is such a hindrance to using Siri for anything more than setting timers and alarms. If you're doing anything that involves gloves or a mask or getting your hands messy, like in a kitchen or something, it is just so frustrating. How about making a toggle so I can choose to be slightly less locked down for Siri, and I take full responsibility if I get hacked because of it.

Settings > Apple Intelligence & Siri > Allow Siri When Locked

Keeping in mind that this gives quite a bit of access to your data, depending on how someone wants to structure their query

Re: Meta Shuts Down End-to-End Encryption for Instagram Messaging

#100

Post by dyauspitr »

bramhaag wrote: post #30
dyauspitr wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Privacy is the reason I’m still on team Apple.

Apple's response to the UK gov asking to see users' iCloud data says enough about where their priorities lie [1]. They do something far worse in China [2]. Don't fool yourself into believing Apple cares about your privacy. They care about money. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgj54eq4vejo [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/apple-moves-to-st...

They’re very clear about when they use e2e encryption and atleast I know when they don’t. There’s multiple reasons I don’t use iCloud.
Post reply on HN