4 ms·

It's worth remembering that this does not protect metadata. It's believed (though not known for sure) that WhatsApp logs metadata for their encrypted messages,

by agd 10y ago

It's worth remembering that this does not protect metadata. It's believed (though not known for sure) that WhatsApp logs metadata for their encrypted messages, and it looks like Facebook do the same here. If you want to resist mass surveillance this is not a good solution.

igravious 10y ago
I think we're going to have to get there (wherever there is: Utopia is a different place for different people) incrementally. It may be unsatisfactory in the short/near term and arguably give people a false sense of security but if we can start educating those non-techies around us bit by bit we may stand a chance at driving mass adoption. Honestly, I'm in no way claiming I can see the future or have even some of the answers, this shit is hard - perhaps even impossible.
mikeokner 10y ago
https://ricochet.im/ https://ricochet.im/ is a good option if you're looking to minimize the amount of metadata that gets leaked. Desktop only at the moment, though, due to the difficulties of running a Tor hidden service from a mobile device.
wepple 10y ago
I'd argue that WhatsApp and FBM adopting signal have been some of the highest-impact movements toward resistance of mass surveillance, largely due to sheer numbers and accessibility. Sure, there is room for improvement, but having 0.000001% of t he population using an ultra-secure messenger doesn't have the same impact. And hopefully those improvements will happen in time.
- agd 10y ago
  The point is that metadata is more valuable for mass surveillance purposes than content. WhatsApp and FBM do nothing to protect metadata.
  - wepple 10y ago
    are you serious? you're suggesting that the metadata of "alice messaged bob at 1:20am" is worth more than "hey bob, I'm looking to have $100,000 laundered, same methods as last time. I'll drop to the usual location. thanks, Alice."
    - Sylos 10y ago
      Well, yeah, without meta-data, you only know that someone messaged someone about laundering money. You have no clue who it is, so it's ultimately pretty useless. Whereas with just meta-data, you can still at least figure out who the guy is talking to, even if you cannot figure out over this way that the guy is laundering money.
      - Quiark 10y ago
        But the situation being compared is 'metadata' vs 'metadata + content'
  - sievebrain 10y ago
    Er, no. Mass surveillance wants both metadata and content. Metadata happens to be a bit easier to analyse, but often they are only analysing metadata to lead them to the content in the first place.

by agd 10y ago

igravious 10y ago

I think we're going to have to get there (wherever there is: Utopia is a different place for different people) incrementally. It may be unsatisfactory in the short/near term and arguably give people a false sense of security but if we can start educating those non-techies around us bit by bit we may stand a chance at driving mass adoption. Honestly, I'm in no way claiming I can see the future or have even some of the answers, this shit is hard - perhaps even impossible.

mikeokner 10y ago

https://ricochet.im/ https://ricochet.im/ is a good option if you're looking to minimize the amount of metadata that gets leaked. Desktop only at the moment, though, due to the difficulties of running a Tor hidden service from a mobile device.

wepple 10y ago

I'd argue that WhatsApp and FBM adopting signal have been some of the highest-impact movements toward resistance of mass surveillance, largely due to sheer numbers and accessibility. Sure, there is room for improvement, but having 0.000001% of t he population using an ultra-secure messenger doesn't have the same impact. And hopefully those improvements will happen in time.

agd 10y ago
The point is that metadata is more valuable for mass surveillance purposes than content. WhatsApp and FBM do nothing to protect metadata.
- wepple 10y ago
  are you serious? you're suggesting that the metadata of "alice messaged bob at 1:20am" is worth more than "hey bob, I'm looking to have $100,000 laundered, same methods as last time. I'll drop to the usual location. thanks, Alice."
  - Sylos 10y ago
    Well, yeah, without meta-data, you only know that someone messaged someone about laundering money. You have no clue who it is, so it's ultimately pretty useless. Whereas with just meta-data, you can still at least figure out who the guy is talking to, even if you cannot figure out over this way that the guy is laundering money.
    - Quiark 10y ago
      But the situation being compared is 'metadata' vs 'metadata + content'
- sievebrain 10y ago
  Er, no. Mass surveillance wants both metadata and content. Metadata happens to be a bit easier to analyse, but often they are only analysing metadata to lead them to the content in the first place.