4 ms·
Remind me, was that before or after they enabled end-to-end encryption?
by martinko 10y ago
Remind me, was that before or after they enabled end-to-end encryption?
- kbart 10y agoSince WhatsApp is virtually a blackbox, their word for end-to-end encryption means nothing. Few 'bugs' in implementation and you have a nice backdoor.
- dnzm 10y ago> Few 'bugs' in implementation and you have a nice backdoor. Just one would be enough, methinks.
- martinko 10y agoTrue, but it would at least give them plausible deniability that they couldn't hand over plaintext messages, even if they wanted to.
- etatoby 10y agoThat's probably the entire purpose behind WhatsApp "encryption": to have their cake and eat it too.
- cderwin 10y ago> Few 'bugs' in implementation and you have a nice backdoor. This holds regardless of whether WhatsApp is a blackbox or not. Now, that doesn't make the claim of end-to-end encryption verifiable, but if you take Facebook's word for it, the bug bounty should be about as good a stalwart as there is against implementation bugs.
- tim333 10y agoIt's kind of complicated. There were Brazilian bans in 2015 and 2016. Whatsapp has had encryption since 2012 but it was a bit half arsed. It now seems good. I guess the courts could still order the metadata of who's been calling who though. It's a bit unclear what exactly the courts did order.