Is this some simple virtue signaling (for closed source app) directed at users that are not technically inclined? I didn’t see this being promoted at this level in any other app.
From what I understand, WhatsApp does have proper end to end encryption, which means messages can only be read by the sender and recipient. It’s a very good thing, and SHOULD be promoted in my opinion.
But that doesn’t mean WhatsApp respects your privacy. Even though the messages are encrypted, the actual app is still collecting and scraping every little piece of info about you possible. Think location, IP addresses, your contacts, what’s in your clipboard, camera, mic… I don’t know the details, but that’s where the privacy concerns come from.
Yes, though since it’s closed source, contains other proprietary libraries and probably was never properly audited (by a 3rd party) it’s possible (even likely, considering it’s Meta we’re talking about) that they keep a copy of the private key(s) and the messages, so that they’re able to decrypt them, and so still be able to gather the content, in addition to everything else, while they can publicly claim it’s all Signal’s protocol so everything’s “E2E”. And yes, the app also gathers a lot of other data (actual and metadata) besides the content of the messages (which Meta can’t supposedly see since it’s E2E, but I never trust anything from Meta). A Meta app (or Google, or MS, for that matter) should generate the same sort of privacy outrages and media/politics attention like TikTok does, but somehow they don’t. “Same shit, different country” was never so fitting.
Here’s a very good messenger comparison: https://www.messenger-matrix.de/messenger-matrix-en.html
BBM and Signal also have full supported encryption in transit and end to end.
In these both instances the messages sent are only able to be read by by the recipients. If anyone gains access to Blackberry or signals servers the messages would be unreadable.
I think it may have something to do with the fact that the UK is far along in a plan to effectively ban encrypted messaging, and many other countries are looking in the same draconian direction. They want non-techy users (AKA voters) to know about it and to understand that it’s super important.
UK person here - my concern is that the opposition haven’t clearly stated that they would repeal the law if they were voted into power (to my knowledge, I’d be delighted to be corrected on this front!)
So letting voters know about it is great but if none of the main parties are actually against the law coming into effect - which is being sold as an anti-paedophile/child abuse measure, which framed like that would be popular with a lot of non-techy voters who don’t trust an unregulated internet - a few little messages saying ‘yay encryption!’ aren’t going to do anything.
I don’t think there’s anything particularly partisan about the law in the first place so it’s not so much an issue of what any party supports but rather education of the electorate at large. People aren’t going to get excited about encryption but they will be angry when WhatsApp stops working (which is what is going to happen) and they need to know why. Ideally they’ll hear enough rumblings that literally all of their messaging apps are going to stop working before the law goes into effect to stop it in time.
I mean I think this is why it’s an interesting scenario - that’s very much the view losing side of things but I don’t think the politicians have fully grasped that yet. I don’t know whether that’s because they think the tech companies will ultimately ‘come round’ - in which case they’re badly mistaken - or whether they’re really that badly informed.
But politicians organise everything by WhatsApp as we’ve learned… I honestly don’t think they understand the consequences. But I’m just a poor humble member of the electorate, what do I know compared to intellectual titans like Jacob Reece-Mogg and Suella Braveman (who presumably as home sec has an interest in this?)
I wonder if these government officials in the UK would be happy with me opening their physical “private” mail and reading it before handing it to them?
FYI tampering with someone’s mail is illegal. So why would this not hold true for any form of communication between two or more parties.
What about email then? First digital messaging technology of the world and still unencrypted to this day
The answer is it depends really on the email provider you are using, and the email provider your recipient is using on the other end.
In general, email is encrypted “in transit” if the sending and receiving email service providers both support transport layer security (TLS). This enables you to secure data in transit (i.e., when it moves from one party to the other).
In order for emails to be encrypted fully before being sent — meaning that they’re still unreadable to unauthorized users once they’re sitting on the recipient’s email server — both parties must use the same email encryption service (such as ProtonMail).
Examples of fully expected services (between individuals on the service) include things like:
WhatsApp BBM (blackberry messenger) Signal
I think you nailed it, it’s flashy virtue signaling/techno-mysticism to make people feel like they’re secure while using a closed source app with incomplete E2E and backdoors
Don’t trust any Meta product, Zuck doesn’t give a fuck about the privacy of his customers/end users.
