It still feels weird to have security experts characterize WhatsApp's choice as acceptable; it feels off to attribute its success around the rare occurence that

It still feels weird to have security experts characterize WhatsApp's choice as acceptable; it feels off to attribute its success around the rare occurence that a message could need to be resent. I think the over-reaction to the stance of the security community is that it gives the vibe that the flaw is minimized. For the layman, every security flaw, every vulnerability is a totally obscure, incomprehensible jargon-filled techno mumbo-jumbo. Now we have the case that sometimes the experts go wild over the dangers of a flaw, sometimes they say "Ah, better than nothing". It gives the impression that WhatsApp is been let off the hook. I think the argument would have been better framed by stating simply that WhatsApp's decision is a security flaw, that it should be fixed from a security POV, but it's still better than most alternatives and leave it at that. That whole dance about it being an acceptable compromise would have been better off omitted. The letter commits the same error as the Guardian: in trying to be too comprehensive and precise, it muddies its point.