The article isn't very, uh, articulate in its reasoning. Nothing here is an actual real life problem it's all just what-ifs, and 2 billion people aren't going to quit using it
A teen in Nebraska was sentenced to 3 months in jail because Facebook turned over her "private" messages but sure, no real life problems with trusting meta with your "encrypted" messages.
I do not disagree with your basic premise and I completely disagree with the Nebraska prosecution but I think people need to understand that everything we do online it's monitored.
If they can't get the actual message data, they will use meta data (e.g. two parties sending and receiving data packets that match in size and time of occurrence and protocol and are known to each other) or whatever.
If you are doing something you are worried about other people knowing about, do not use any digital form of communication. Full stop. There is no privacy online.
You're absolutely right, there's no privacy online. But there are significantly better alternatives that offer end to end encryption and sometimes digital communication is required.
Yes, I agree, for example credit card transaction processing or business communication with trade secrets in it. For most people doing things they want kept private but which is not illegal, basic encryption is great.
If I were going to plot the overthrow of a government, I'd try to as much as possible offline.
That was Facebook Messenger too, completely different app and problem, not that Whatsapp isnt better or worse.
I used it as an example because they're both owned by meta and make similar promises on privacy and encryption.
If you wanted something unforgivable Whatsapp is proprietary software and thus restricts your freedom. Using nonfree software is an abuse in of itself.
The article isn't very, uh, articulate in its reasoning. Nothing here is an actual real life problem it's all just what-ifs, and 2 billion people aren't going to quit using it
A teen in Nebraska was sentenced to 3 months in jail because Facebook turned over her "private" messages but sure, no real life problems with trusting meta with your "encrypted" messages.
I do not disagree with your basic premise and I completely disagree with the Nebraska prosecution but I think people need to understand that everything we do online it's monitored.
If they can't get the actual message data, they will use meta data (e.g. two parties sending and receiving data packets that match in size and time of occurrence and protocol and are known to each other) or whatever.
If you are doing something you are worried about other people knowing about, do not use any digital form of communication. Full stop. There is no privacy online.
You're absolutely right, there's no privacy online. But there are significantly better alternatives that offer end to end encryption and sometimes digital communication is required.
Yes, I agree, for example credit card transaction processing or business communication with trade secrets in it. For most people doing things they want kept private but which is not illegal, basic encryption is great.
If I were going to plot the overthrow of a government, I'd try to as much as possible offline.
That was Facebook Messenger too, completely different app and problem, not that Whatsapp isnt better or worse.
I used it as an example because they're both owned by meta and make similar promises on privacy and encryption.
If you wanted something unforgivable Whatsapp is proprietary software and thus restricts your freedom. Using nonfree software is an abuse in of itself.