5 ms·

Who do they expect to fall for the claims that a Facebook owned messenger couldn't read your "encrypted" messages? It's truly funny. Any large scale provider w

by Ms-J 8mo ago

Who do they expect to fall for the claims that a Facebook owned messenger couldn't read your "encrypted" messages? It's truly funny. Any large scale provider with headquarters in the USA will be subject to backdoors and information sharing with the government when they want to read or know what you are doing.

mattmaroon 8mo ago
I think you can safely remove “in the USA” from that sentence.
hsuduebc2 8mo ago
I do not believe them either. The swift start of the investigation by U.S. authorities only suggests there was no obstacle to opening one, not that nothing could be found. By “could not,” I mean it is not currently possible to confirm, not that there is necessarily nothing there. Personally, I would never trust anyone big enough that it(in this case Meta) need and want to be deeply entangled in politics.
kgwxd 8mo ago
They're only concerned someone at meta, they don't already control, could read their personal messages.
huijzer 8mo ago
I have reached the point that I think even the chat control discussion might be a distraction because essentially they can already get anything. Yeah government needs to fill in a form to request, but that’s mostly automated I believe
- j45 8mo ago
  Such initiatives are likely trying to make it easier.
- gruez 8mo ago
  >I have reached the point that I think even the chat control discussion might be a distraction because essentially they can already get anything. Then why are politicians wasting time and attracting ire attempting pushing it through? Same goes for UK demanding backdoors. If they already have it, why start a big public fight over it?
Aurornis 8mo ago
> Any large scale provider with headquarters in the USA will be subject to backdoors and information sharing with the government when they want to read or know what you are doing. Not just the USA. This is basically universal.
- j45 8mo ago
  It's not guaranteed or by default. This type of generalized defeatism does more harm than not.
  - embedding-shape 8mo ago
    No, assuming that anything besides what you can verify yourself is compromised isn't "defeatism", although I'd agree that it's overkill in many cases. But for your data you want to absolutely keep secret? It's probably the only to guarantee someone else somewhere cannot see it, default to assume if it's remote, someone will eventually be able to access it. If not today, it'll be stored and decrypted later.
  - Aurornis 8mo ago
    > It's not guaranteed or by default. Nation state governments do have the ability to coerce companies within their territory by default. If you think this feature is unique to the USA, you are buying too much into a separate narrative. All countries can and will use the force of law to control companies within their borders when they see fit. The USA actually has more freedom and protections in this area than many countries, even though it’s far from perfect. > This type of generalized defeatism does more harm than not. Pointing out the realities of the world and how governments work isn’t defeatism. Believing that the USA is uniquely bad and closing your eyes to how other countries work is more harmful than helpful.
    - j45 8mo ago
      Understanding the cloud is someone else's computer is something I've repeated many, many, many times in my comments. The OP assumption that it's just the way it is and everyone should accept their communication being compromised is the issue.
rdtsc 8mo ago
> Any large scale provider with headquarters in the USA will be subject to backdoors Wonder what large scale provider outside USA won’t do that?
olalonde 8mo ago
Me? I'd be very surprised if they can actually read encrypted messages (without pushing a malicious client update). The odds that no one at Meta would blow the whistle seem low, and a backdoor would likely be discovered by independent security researchers.
- riazrizvi 8mo ago
  If there is such a back door, it would hardly follow it's widely known within the company. From the sparse reports on why Facebook/Meta has been caught doing this in the past, it's for favor trading and leverage at the highest levels.
- nindalf 8mo ago
  I'd be surprised as well. I know people who've worked on the WhatsApp apps specifically for years. It feels highly unlikely that they wouldn't have come across this backdoor and they wouldn't have mentioned it to me. Happy to bet $100 that this lawsuit goes nowhere.
- Snoozus 8mo ago
  Is there an independent audit of the Whatsapp client and of the servers?
- SoftTalker 8mo ago
  That was my reaction on reading the headline. Of course Meta can read them, they own the entire stack. The question would really be do they?
preisschild 8mo ago
> Any large scale provider with headquarters in the USA will be subject to backdoors and information sharing with the government when they want to read or know what you are doing. Thats just wrong. Signal for example is headquartered in the US and does not even have this capability (besides metadata)

by Ms-J 8mo ago

mattmaroon 8mo ago

I think you can safely remove “in the USA” from that sentence.

hsuduebc2 8mo ago

I do not believe them either. The swift start of the investigation by U.S. authorities only suggests there was no obstacle to opening one, not that nothing could be found. By “could not,” I mean it is not currently possible to confirm, not that there is necessarily nothing there. Personally, I would never trust anyone big enough that it(in this case Meta) need and want to be deeply entangled in politics.

kgwxd 8mo ago

They're only concerned someone at meta, they don't already control, could read their personal messages.

huijzer 8mo ago

I have reached the point that I think even the chat control discussion might be a distraction because essentially they can already get anything. Yeah government needs to fill in a form to request, but that’s mostly automated I believe

j45 8mo ago
Such initiatives are likely trying to make it easier.
gruez 8mo ago
>I have reached the point that I think even the chat control discussion might be a distraction because essentially they can already get anything. Then why are politicians wasting time and attracting ire attempting pushing it through? Same goes for UK demanding backdoors. If they already have it, why start a big public fight over it?

Aurornis 8mo ago

> Any large scale provider with headquarters in the USA will be subject to backdoors and information sharing with the government when they want to read or know what you are doing. Not just the USA. This is basically universal.

j45 8mo ago
It's not guaranteed or by default. This type of generalized defeatism does more harm than not.
- embedding-shape 8mo ago
  No, assuming that anything besides what you can verify yourself is compromised isn't "defeatism", although I'd agree that it's overkill in many cases. But for your data you want to absolutely keep secret? It's probably the only to guarantee someone else somewhere cannot see it, default to assume if it's remote, someone will eventually be able to access it. If not today, it'll be stored and decrypted later.
- Aurornis 8mo ago
  > It's not guaranteed or by default. Nation state governments do have the ability to coerce companies within their territory by default. If you think this feature is unique to the USA, you are buying too much into a separate narrative. All countries can and will use the force of law to control companies within their borders when they see fit. The USA actually has more freedom and protections in this area than many countries, even though it’s far from perfect. > This type of generalized defeatism does more harm than not. Pointing out the realities of the world and how governments work isn’t defeatism. Believing that the USA is uniquely bad and closing your eyes to how other countries work is more harmful than helpful.
  - j45 8mo ago
    Understanding the cloud is someone else's computer is something I've repeated many, many, many times in my comments. The OP assumption that it's just the way it is and everyone should accept their communication being compromised is the issue.

rdtsc 8mo ago

> Any large scale provider with headquarters in the USA will be subject to backdoors Wonder what large scale provider outside USA won’t do that?

olalonde 8mo ago

Me? I'd be very surprised if they can actually read encrypted messages (without pushing a malicious client update). The odds that no one at Meta would blow the whistle seem low, and a backdoor would likely be discovered by independent security researchers.

riazrizvi 8mo ago
If there is such a back door, it would hardly follow it's widely known within the company. From the sparse reports on why Facebook/Meta has been caught doing this in the past, it's for favor trading and leverage at the highest levels.
nindalf 8mo ago
I'd be surprised as well. I know people who've worked on the WhatsApp apps specifically for years. It feels highly unlikely that they wouldn't have come across this backdoor and they wouldn't have mentioned it to me. Happy to bet $100 that this lawsuit goes nowhere.
Snoozus 8mo ago
Is there an independent audit of the Whatsapp client and of the servers?
SoftTalker 8mo ago
That was my reaction on reading the headline. Of course Meta can read them, they own the entire stack. The question would really be do they?

preisschild 8mo ago

> Any large scale provider with headquarters in the USA will be subject to backdoors and information sharing with the government when they want to read or know what you are doing. Thats just wrong. Signal for example is headquartered in the US and does not even have this capability (besides metadata)