Open source doesn’t mean it’s secure and closed source doesn’t mean it’s not secure. Also, if it wasn’t e2e encrypted, we would find out pretty much instantly since there are a lot of people who reverse engineering apps like WhatsApp, since zero-day exploits cost a lot of money, you know. So, personally, I would be pretty sure that WhatsApp is absolutely end-to-end encrypted.
Also, how is it a good idea to give a signal my contacts if it’s not okay to give meta my contacts?
Also, if you don’t accept this argument, then how do you know there’s not a component in your phone that listens to everything you say that’s above system level?..
Of course closed source software can be secure, but given that you can’t verify that it actually is, it’s better to treat it as if it’s not. And I’m not saying that WhatsApp isn’t encrypted, but we can’t know if this also applies properly to metadata, or which encryption algorithm is actually used, if the keys are really only accessible to end users (i.e. if it’s really E2EE), etc.
It’s not unreasonable to think that Meta (or any other Big Tech company) makes their products just secure enough to not allow just about anyone with the right abilities to exploit weaknesses (which would obviously hurt their business), while still retaining the ability for themselves to have access to at least some of the data.
Also, how is it a good idea to give a signal my contacts if it’s not okay to give meta my contacts?
Also, if you don’t accept this argument, then how do you know there’s not a component in your phone that listens to everything you say that’s above system level?..
You seem to be treating privacy like an all-or-nothing situation. There’s different levels to privacy, with different realistic possibilities and threat models. To give you the short answers to both questions: It’s not a good idea to give Signal access to your contacts, and I indeed don’t know if there’s a component in my phone spying on everything. But there is nuance to both.
First off, Signal’s Contact Dicovery Service is open source. Of course there’s still a level of trust required regarding Signal’s operational integrity, as we can’t know if this is really what runs on their servers, but at least the Signal Foundation doesn’t have a history of countless known privacy violations like Meta does, which means it all comes down to how much you trust either of those organisations. So even though I wouldn’t recommend granting Signal access to your contacts and personally prefer messengers without such a feature (e.g. SimpleX), I also don’t yet insist on recommending against it.
As for the hardware: Assuming that there is indeed some component spying on me, why would this be a justification to become careless about privacy on the software level? And the real difference between the arguments is the availability of alternatives. While there are quite a few open-source messenger alternatives, the same can’t be said about hardware. And it’s unlikely for there to be anything on the hardware level that could be spying without anyone noticing, at least if we assume that this hardware would send this data somewhere, which one would surely notice when analysing network traffic or by checking for emitted radio frequencies if the manufacturer had the genius idea of using mesh networks instead.
However, certain components could certainly be used as a backdoor for state actors if they gain physical access to a device, so I’m still advocating for open hardware and firmware.
yes you can verity that it is secure by reverse engineering, just like someone can read the code, someone can reverse engineer it.
And I’m not saying that WhatsApp isn’t encrypted, but we can’t know if this also applies properly to metadata, or which encryption algorithm is actually used, if the keys are really only accessible to end users (i.e. if it’s really E2EE), etc.
It DOESN’T, they literally state that they don’t have encrypt metadata and can share it with other meta services
which honestly as long as the messages themselves are encrypted is sadly still a much better option than sms
Of course there’s still a level of trust required regarding Signal’s operational integrity, as we can’t know if this is really what runs on their servers, but at least the Signal Foundation doesn’t have a history of countless known privacy violations like Meta does, which means it all comes down to how much you trust either of those organisations
thanks for proving you don’t know, even the signal server doesn’t know ur contacts…
As for the hardware: Assuming that there is indeed some component spying on me, why would this be a justification to become careless about privacy on the software level?
because it’d be above everything else and could see everything, no matter the sw ur using… so it’d be pointless anyways
And it’s unlikely for there to be anything on the hardware level that could be spying without anyone noticing, at least if we assume that this hardware would send this data somewhere, which one would surely notice when analysing network traffic or by checking for emitted radio frequencies if the manufacturer had the genius idea of using mesh networks instead.
yes you can verity that it is secure by reverse engineering, just like someone can read the code, someone can reverse engineer it.
No, you can’t, at least not reliably. Reverse engineering is nowhere near as simple as “just like someone can read the code”.
It DOESN’T, they literally state that they don’t have encrypt metadata and can share it with other meta services
I don’t keep up with whatever WhatsApp is doing, so nice to know that it’s already worse than I thought, but it doesn’t really change my point.
which honestly as long as the messages themselves are encrypted is sadly still a much better option than sms
If I could be certain that the messages are in fact encrypted as claimed, I’d agree.
thanks for proving you don’t know, even the signal server doesn’t know ur contacts…
They do, just not in the way you probably think. Unique identifiers (which phone numbers typically are) can always be used to track users, even if they’re just stored as a hash value on a server. They don’t immediately reveal the identity of a person like clear text phone numbers could do, but there’s still information that can be extracted through metadata analysis. Though to be fair, this discussion is more relevant to anonymity than to privacy.
because it’d be above everything else and could see everything, no matter the sw ur using… so it’d be pointless anyways
Why would it be pointless? If some random person broke into your home, would you just open all the doors because apparently doors are pointless? Having one entity spy on you is a weird excuse to let another one do the same. I mean… you do you, but I think it’s a weird mentality to have.
Just like with whatsapp…
Not really, as any unwanted traffic to WhatsApp’s servers would just get drowned within wanted traffic, making it effectively unnoticeable to the user. The same can’t be said for hardware that tries to connect somewhere despite no software on that device being allowed to connect to the internet.
No, you can’t, at least not reliably. Reverse engineering is nowhere near as simple as “just like someone can read the code”.
sure, but someone would find out if WhatsApp didn’t e2ee their messages, which is the most important thing
If I could be certain that the messages are in fact encrypted as claimed, I’d agree.
Well you literally can be, because if it was not someone would find out instantly, it’d be a huge thing and meta would suffer greatly if they lied about e2ee
They do, just not in the way you probably think. Unique identifiers (which phone numbers typically are) can always be used to track users, even if they’re just stored as a hash value on a server. They don’t immediately reveal the identity of a person like clear text phone numbers could do, but there’s still information that can be extracted through metadata analysis. Though to be fair, this discussion is more relevant to anonymity than to privacy.
Sealed sender…, also signal is private, not anonymous, if you want both, simplex is ur friend
Why would it be pointless? If some random person broke into your home, would you just open all the doors because apparently doors are pointless?
well that’s not the same situation the robber wouldn’t see everything, the hw component would… also other doors have the function of keeping heat inside, not keeping robbers away
Not really, as any unwanted traffic to WhatsApp’s servers would just get drowned within wanted traffic, making it effectively unnoticeable to the user. The same can’t be said for hardware that tries to connect somewhere despite no software on that device being allowed to connect to the internet.
Well again if it did something like that, we would know thanks ro reverse engineering
sure, but someone would find out if WhatsApp didn’t e2ee their messages, which is the most important thing
Not necessarily. Code can be obfuscated.
Well you literally can be, because if it was not someone would find out instantly, it’d be a huge thing and meta would suffer greatly if they lied about e2ee
“Instantly”, yeah, sure… WhatsApp isn’t really used for secure communication (I wonder why), but by normies who don’t know any better. I doubt most users would care if something like this came to light.
Sealed sender…, also signal is private, not anonymous, if you want both, simplex is ur friend
Sealed sender has nothing to do with this, as it applies to messages. You can still build a profile of users based on which users submit which hashes for contact discovery, without the need for them to send any message to those contacts at all.
well that’s not the same situation the robber wouldn’t see everything, the hw component would… also other doors have the function of keeping heat inside, not keeping robbers aw
Not necessarily true, and also not really relevant to the analogy. If a hardware component would spy on basically everything, I’d find it weird to just say “Hey Intel, you already have all my data any way, so I’m just going to freely give it to Meta as well.”
Well again if it did something like that, we would know thanks ro reverse engineering
You’re putting too much blind trust in reverse engineering. And since you seem to be insistent on naively trusting Meta and proprietary applications, I won’t try to convince you otherwise. Have fun, I guess.
Open source doesn’t mean it’s secure and closed source doesn’t mean it’s not secure. Also, if it wasn’t e2e encrypted, we would find out pretty much instantly since there are a lot of people who reverse engineering apps like WhatsApp, since zero-day exploits cost a lot of money, you know. So, personally, I would be pretty sure that WhatsApp is absolutely end-to-end encrypted.
Also, how is it a good idea to give a signal my contacts if it’s not okay to give meta my contacts?
Also, if you don’t accept this argument, then how do you know there’s not a component in your phone that listens to everything you say that’s above system level?..
Of course closed source software can be secure, but given that you can’t verify that it actually is, it’s better to treat it as if it’s not. And I’m not saying that WhatsApp isn’t encrypted, but we can’t know if this also applies properly to metadata, or which encryption algorithm is actually used, if the keys are really only accessible to end users (i.e. if it’s really E2EE), etc.
It’s not unreasonable to think that Meta (or any other Big Tech company) makes their products just secure enough to not allow just about anyone with the right abilities to exploit weaknesses (which would obviously hurt their business), while still retaining the ability for themselves to have access to at least some of the data.
You seem to be treating privacy like an all-or-nothing situation. There’s different levels to privacy, with different realistic possibilities and threat models. To give you the short answers to both questions: It’s not a good idea to give Signal access to your contacts, and I indeed don’t know if there’s a component in my phone spying on everything. But there is nuance to both.
First off, Signal’s Contact Dicovery Service is open source. Of course there’s still a level of trust required regarding Signal’s operational integrity, as we can’t know if this is really what runs on their servers, but at least the Signal Foundation doesn’t have a history of countless known privacy violations like Meta does, which means it all comes down to how much you trust either of those organisations. So even though I wouldn’t recommend granting Signal access to your contacts and personally prefer messengers without such a feature (e.g. SimpleX), I also don’t yet insist on recommending against it.
As for the hardware: Assuming that there is indeed some component spying on me, why would this be a justification to become careless about privacy on the software level? And the real difference between the arguments is the availability of alternatives. While there are quite a few open-source messenger alternatives, the same can’t be said about hardware. And it’s unlikely for there to be anything on the hardware level that could be spying without anyone noticing, at least if we assume that this hardware would send this data somewhere, which one would surely notice when analysing network traffic or by checking for emitted radio frequencies if the manufacturer had the genius idea of using mesh networks instead.
However, certain components could certainly be used as a backdoor for state actors if they gain physical access to a device, so I’m still advocating for open hardware and firmware.
yes you can verity that it is secure by reverse engineering, just like someone can read the code, someone can reverse engineer it.
It DOESN’T, they literally state that they don’t have encrypt metadata and can share it with other meta services
which honestly as long as the messages themselves are encrypted is sadly still a much better option than sms
thanks for proving you don’t know, even the signal server doesn’t know ur contacts…
https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/
https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007061452-Does-Signal-send-my-number-to-my-contacts
because it’d be above everything else and could see everything, no matter the sw ur using… so it’d be pointless anyways
Just like with whatsapp…
No, you can’t, at least not reliably. Reverse engineering is nowhere near as simple as “just like someone can read the code”.
I don’t keep up with whatever WhatsApp is doing, so nice to know that it’s already worse than I thought, but it doesn’t really change my point.
If I could be certain that the messages are in fact encrypted as claimed, I’d agree.
They do, just not in the way you probably think. Unique identifiers (which phone numbers typically are) can always be used to track users, even if they’re just stored as a hash value on a server. They don’t immediately reveal the identity of a person like clear text phone numbers could do, but there’s still information that can be extracted through metadata analysis. Though to be fair, this discussion is more relevant to anonymity than to privacy.
Why would it be pointless? If some random person broke into your home, would you just open all the doors because apparently doors are pointless? Having one entity spy on you is a weird excuse to let another one do the same. I mean… you do you, but I think it’s a weird mentality to have.
Not really, as any unwanted traffic to WhatsApp’s servers would just get drowned within wanted traffic, making it effectively unnoticeable to the user. The same can’t be said for hardware that tries to connect somewhere despite no software on that device being allowed to connect to the internet.
sure, but someone would find out if WhatsApp didn’t e2ee their messages, which is the most important thing
Well you literally can be, because if it was not someone would find out instantly, it’d be a huge thing and meta would suffer greatly if they lied about e2ee
Sealed sender…, also signal is private, not anonymous, if you want both, simplex is ur friend
well that’s not the same situation the robber wouldn’t see everything, the hw component would… also other doors have the function of keeping heat inside, not keeping robbers away
Well again if it did something like that, we would know thanks ro reverse engineering
Not necessarily. Code can be obfuscated.
“Instantly”, yeah, sure… WhatsApp isn’t really used for secure communication (I wonder why), but by normies who don’t know any better. I doubt most users would care if something like this came to light.
Sealed sender has nothing to do with this, as it applies to messages. You can still build a profile of users based on which users submit which hashes for contact discovery, without the need for them to send any message to those contacts at all.
Not necessarily true, and also not really relevant to the analogy. If a hardware component would spy on basically everything, I’d find it weird to just say “Hey Intel, you already have all my data any way, so I’m just going to freely give it to Meta as well.”
You’re putting too much blind trust in reverse engineering. And since you seem to be insistent on naively trusting Meta and proprietary applications, I won’t try to convince you otherwise. Have fun, I guess.