4 ms·

Why do they bother? Whatsapp can do all of that right now. Has done successfully for a few years. And the article sounds like it would need support by the mobil

by corty 6y ago

Why do they bother? Whatsapp can do all of that right now. Has done successfully for a few years. And the article sounds like it would need support by the mobile carriers: being deeply in the pocket of governments, they won't switch on E2E, just like all the intentionally vulnerable crappy mobile encryption. Also, being mobile carriers, they will bill huge amounts per message, making it unacceptable to consumers used to "its hidden in the cost of the data plan". Oh, and being a Google project: when do we expect RCS to be abandoned?

fakedang 6y ago
Chill, let some Google PM have his ego boost and bonus while it lasts, before Pichai McKinseys it out. Honestly, I don't see an outward difference between this and Hangouts (which is being shut down come December), apart from the end-to-end encryption. Moreover, the Android Messages section is for all the crap I get from nearby outlets advertising their "best deals", or scam artists targeting the vulnerable. I cannot honestly see myself or my peers switching out from Whatsapp to this, especially not when Whatsapp has become a verb in most of the old world. As I've said before, Whatsapp is trusted so much that autocratic regimes such as the KSA, Russia, UAE and Venezuela used it to discuss OPEC production limits. People in all of these countries trust Whatsapp far more than Android, in spite of them being known to be owned by Facebook, and in spite of said people being very wary of using Facebook for messaging (most Arab Spring countries for instance).
username90 6y ago
> Whatsapp can do all of that right now. No it can't, this is about sending end to end encrypted messages via the phone network and not the internet. Phone networks have much better coverage than internet providers. Sending E2E encrypted messages via internet is already possible on Google services. Edit: Or Google might have shut those services down. Anyway, this isn't about a chat app but making e2e the new standard for SMS.
- corty 6y ago
  RCS uses the phone network data channel. So more internet than phone in that aspect, it's not at all like SMS hiding in the free space in beacon frames. Therefore coverage won't be any better. The only possible minimal difference would be using authentication via SIM/carrier instead of the Whatsapp method of sending a confirmation code via SMS/call. But that is a very minor difference.
viraptor 6y ago
This comment is just full of misunderstandings. Why do they bother? They're supporting a standard the same way they support SMS. So far extra charges are not common and any provider I can find includes RCS in data plan. RCS is not a Google service either so they can't really kill it. I'm not sure why you're so biased against the idea, but posting fud about it is not great.
- corty 6y ago
  RCS isn't "a standard", it is a dozen or so. Every carrier does it differently, so does Google, so does maybe Apple. The ecosystem will be fragmented along carrier lines and OSes. And the software is a Google (Android branded, but same difference) thing, so of course they can and will kill it at some point. I'm not posting FUD, I'm trying to point out that RCS is looking dead on arrival. Industry people even said so 5 years ago. All the signs are there. The horse they are riding is stillborn. https://disruptivewireless.blogspot.com/2015/05/rcs-is-still-zombie-technology-28.html?m=1 https://disruptivewireless.blogspot.com/2015/05/rcs-is-still...
macspoofing 6y ago
>Why do they bother? Whatsapp can do all of that right now. Has done successfully for a few years. When people ask why there are so many streaming services, it is as if to imply it would be better for everyone if Netflix had a total monopoly on streamed content. So to answer you: because not everyone uses Whatsapp and it wouldn't be great to live in a world where Whatsapp (Facebook) has a monopoly on instant messaging. >being deeply in the pocket of governments, they won't switch on E2E, just like all the intentionally vulnerable crappy mobile encryption. Whatsapp is not immune to that pressure - by the way. Also, you're way to trusting of the E2E on Whatsapp. You don't control the client-code, so you don't know the myriad of ways a private key can leak out (either by design or accidentally). For example, I'm using the web app of Whatsapp and somehow I'm able to read my entire messaging history - why? Because my mobile app transferred the private key through some mechanism to my web app, passing through Facebook servers. I'm sure you can explain to me how that can be done securely - maybe there is another key exchange, and WhatsApp messaged are encrypted once, transferred to the phone, and then encrypted again. Either way, your trust of WhatsApps E2E encryption is only as a good as Facebook's corporate polices. So at the end of the day, you are relying on Facebook's goodwill and relying on the fact Facebook doesn't issue a patch that opaquely transfer the key in a future update. >Also, being mobile carriers, they will bill huge amounts per message That may be a regional thing. Keep in mind, the world is bigger than America.
- corty 6y ago
  Whatsapp is the biggest example, but the same goes for Signal, Threema, partially Matrix, XMPP and Telegram. Where is the advantage over those? Why should Joe Average use it? After all, even if RCS will have E2EE, I still need to trust Google to do it right, not helpfully backup plaintext, etc. And all the carriers seem to need to be on board. Let's see how that goes...
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    Android needs a default SMS client, so might as well enable E2E encryption(or provide the option to). Is it secure? A little, maybe. E2E encryption over proprietary clients, on closed platforms, is as secure as HTTPS, in that, it provides some value but I wouldn't bank on this to protect you from government spying or even police investigations.
xbmcuser 6y ago
SMS is used for 2 factor authentication a lot if I read this correctly once implemented properly. A duplicate Sim card wont work as an attack surface

by corty 6y ago

fakedang 6y ago

Chill, let some Google PM have his ego boost and bonus while it lasts, before Pichai McKinseys it out. Honestly, I don't see an outward difference between this and Hangouts (which is being shut down come December), apart from the end-to-end encryption. Moreover, the Android Messages section is for all the crap I get from nearby outlets advertising their "best deals", or scam artists targeting the vulnerable. I cannot honestly see myself or my peers switching out from Whatsapp to this, especially not when Whatsapp has become a verb in most of the old world. As I've said before, Whatsapp is trusted so much that autocratic regimes such as the KSA, Russia, UAE and Venezuela used it to discuss OPEC production limits. People in all of these countries trust Whatsapp far more than Android, in spite of them being known to be owned by Facebook, and in spite of said people being very wary of using Facebook for messaging (most Arab Spring countries for instance).

username90 6y ago

> Whatsapp can do all of that right now. No it can't, this is about sending end to end encrypted messages via the phone network and not the internet. Phone networks have much better coverage than internet providers. Sending E2E encrypted messages via internet is already possible on Google services. Edit: Or Google might have shut those services down. Anyway, this isn't about a chat app but making e2e the new standard for SMS.

corty 6y ago
RCS uses the phone network data channel. So more internet than phone in that aspect, it's not at all like SMS hiding in the free space in beacon frames. Therefore coverage won't be any better. The only possible minimal difference would be using authentication via SIM/carrier instead of the Whatsapp method of sending a confirmation code via SMS/call. But that is a very minor difference.

viraptor 6y ago

This comment is just full of misunderstandings. Why do they bother? They're supporting a standard the same way they support SMS. So far extra charges are not common and any provider I can find includes RCS in data plan. RCS is not a Google service either so they can't really kill it. I'm not sure why you're so biased against the idea, but posting fud about it is not great.

corty 6y ago
RCS isn't "a standard", it is a dozen or so. Every carrier does it differently, so does Google, so does maybe Apple. The ecosystem will be fragmented along carrier lines and OSes. And the software is a Google (Android branded, but same difference) thing, so of course they can and will kill it at some point. I'm not posting FUD, I'm trying to point out that RCS is looking dead on arrival. Industry people even said so 5 years ago. All the signs are there. The horse they are riding is stillborn. https://disruptivewireless.blogspot.com/2015/05/rcs-is-still-zombie-technology-28.html?m=1 https://disruptivewireless.blogspot.com/2015/05/rcs-is-still...

macspoofing 6y ago

>Why do they bother? Whatsapp can do all of that right now. Has done successfully for a few years. When people ask why there are so many streaming services, it is as if to imply it would be better for everyone if Netflix had a total monopoly on streamed content. So to answer you: because not everyone uses Whatsapp and it wouldn't be great to live in a world where Whatsapp (Facebook) has a monopoly on instant messaging. >being deeply in the pocket of governments, they won't switch on E2E, just like all the intentionally vulnerable crappy mobile encryption. Whatsapp is not immune to that pressure - by the way. Also, you're way to trusting of the E2E on Whatsapp. You don't control the client-code, so you don't know the myriad of ways a private key can leak out (either by design or accidentally). For example, I'm using the web app of Whatsapp and somehow I'm able to read my entire messaging history - why? Because my mobile app transferred the private key through some mechanism to my web app, passing through Facebook servers. I'm sure you can explain to me how that can be done securely - maybe there is another key exchange, and WhatsApp messaged are encrypted once, transferred to the phone, and then encrypted again. Either way, your trust of WhatsApps E2E encryption is only as a good as Facebook's corporate polices. So at the end of the day, you are relying on Facebook's goodwill and relying on the fact Facebook doesn't issue a patch that opaquely transfer the key in a future update. >Also, being mobile carriers, they will bill huge amounts per message That may be a regional thing. Keep in mind, the world is bigger than America.

corty 6y ago
Whatsapp is the biggest example, but the same goes for Signal, Threema, partially Matrix, XMPP and Telegram. Where is the advantage over those? Why should Joe Average use it? After all, even if RCS will have E2EE, I still need to trust Google to do it right, not helpfully backup plaintext, etc. And all the carriers seem to need to be on board. Let's see how that goes...
- macspoofing 6y ago
  Android needs a default SMS client, so might as well enable E2E encryption(or provide the option to). Is it secure? A little, maybe. E2E encryption over proprietary clients, on closed platforms, is as secure as HTTPS, in that, it provides some value but I wouldn't bank on this to protect you from government spying or even police investigations.

xbmcuser 6y ago

SMS is used for 2 factor authentication a lot if I read this correctly once implemented properly. A duplicate Sim card wont work as an attack surface