Hi, all. I has always been a privacy and security enthusiast who follows and supports the development of open source and privacy friendly software such as the Proton Suite, Firefox, Brave, Bitwarden, Notesnook, ublock origin and etc. I even started blogging in my native language about the importance of these issues. Yet, I think I am experiencing an overwhelming exhaustion which I find very weird and funny to some extent that. I exactly know why I should not turn in myself to apple. Still the struggle comes to me futile nowadays.
Using these apps cost a significant inconvenience. And, most of the time, you experience some problems with these products. For instance, after the release of Proton Drive, I started to switch my backups from Icloud Drive to Proton, and it was very painful. I cannot completely use SimpleLogin, because there are so many sites blocking it during or after registration. These are just simple examples. Even though you pay for the products, you rarely find complete replacements, and you wont have the deeper integration with your OS and devices.
Instead of this hassle, I can use Safari, Icloud mail and drive, hide my email and other apple services. Most of them are E2EE, privacy friendly services, unlike Google or Microsoft products.
So, is it still worth the hassle and time I spend in the future resisting to use the alternatives? Is there anyone with similar feelings?
It just comes down to your personal threat model: are you okay with trusting Apple with the things youâve listed? If yes, then thereâs nothing wrong with it and youâre going to still have decent privacy from third parties that arenât Apple. If your threat model is âbig tech fuck offâ then you should keep trying to use non-Apple services even if you are on Apple devices right now and migrate to non-Apple devices as your current devices get to be replaced.
I donât know what your threat model is, but if you trust Apple by all means use it.
But I still think looking into alternatives is a good thing, but you donât always need to replace what you have if it works.
BTW, have you looked into digital minimalism? I donât know your needs but this helped me a lot with my personal burnout. For example, for notes you could just use a notebook and for cloud backups use hard drives. It could also benefit your privacy.
Donât use all these apps all at once, especially if youâre inside an Apple ecosystem, which is pretty much a lockdown. You are better with trying one alternative at a time. Otherwise, it would be an overwhelming experience.
The source should be available, so anyone can verify that their E2EE implementation is working correctly without any hole/backdoor. Otherwise, itâs worthless.
If itâs possible, even the OS should be open source. But itâs still worth using privacy-friendly apps regardless of the OS.
The misunderstanding would be assuming that you canât verify things if you have no source. I havenât read any articles claiming that Appleâs explanation of how iMessage E2EE works is not true; it would not be very hard to get a jailbroken device and hook into iMessage to trace whether it is doing what it says itâs doing (at least for the on-device portion). Obviously open-source implementations like Signal are better because you donât have to jump through any hoops beyond knowing basic coding and cybersecurity to verify things, but again, you donât need to see the source to do that verification.
In what sense? I suppose it will depend on your usage but by far the biggest inconvenience for me is vendor lock-in. Even if you nowadays use only Apple devices and can thus conveniently access all the data everywhere, youâre curtailing your freedom when it comes to device purchasing choices and setting yourself up for potentially painful forced migrations in the future whether you decide to continue buying Apple or not. Its not just Google that discontinues services or changes the conditions under which they are available
No, you canât verify anything without the source. For example, if the hidden code randomly applies to some devices? To some random period of time? Or to a specific individual? Etc.
For some obvious cases, yes. For any real verification, no.
This proves nothing. No one knows. Itâs like saying that only the one who got caught for stealing is a thief, so if the person can steal without getting caught, he/she is not a thief.
I think itâs important to criticise proprietary software with accurate claims, not hypotheticals that lean into conspiracy territory. If your threat model requires being absolutely 110% sure thereâs nothing there thatâs malicious then yes, you take those hypotheticals into account and use FOSS software and do all the intense checking, but for the average person who isnât a high-value target, it just ends up being more conspiratorial than anything and personally it makes it hard to support FOSS despite it being better overall.
All the claims of âhidden code that randomly appliesâ can happen with FOSS software, especially if itâs a large enough project. Someone nearly snuck a backdoor into Linux. Itâs not an argument that uniquely applies to proprietary software.
PS: âtheyâ is a wonderful pronoun you can use for people without the clunky âhe/sheâ, itâs been in English for longer than anyone here has been alive
Itâs just a matter of fact and one of differences between proprietary software and open source/source available software. Itâs just that no one can claim for 100% that any proprietary software work the way they told. I didnât say for 100% like you do that we can verify the apps without seeing the source. I did say that no one can ignore that possibility.
This is incorrect. Nothing can be hidden in a public FOSS repo. If itâs not found, yes.
Thank you teacher. Sorry, English is not my native language. I believe not all people alive here is a native English speaker. I will try better next time, by the way.
Unfortunately much of the FOSS software is not checked by people who have suitable skills to detect malicious code. Also if you use a binary package you donât know that what you have matches the source code (example the SourceForge disaster). IIRC The Atlantic Council even listed OSS as the 4th most significant threat to software security ( I assume because it is so easy to insert malicious code on collaborative projects). To be 100% safe you would need to have the skills to detect malicious code, then examine the app source code, each of the libraries it uses, and any other code sources it uses, then compile it on a compiler which you have also checked to be sure the compiler is not inserting malicious code. I donât know anyone who has done this.
Personally I rely more on the reputation of the source of the binary than OSS or proprietary, though given the choice I prefer OSS.
My threat model is just about evading mass surveillance, big tech, and supporting open source projects. I donât see Apple as a threat personally. However, I really dislike the walled garden mentality, and want to support open source projects and community.
Do I trust Apple? I think they have a different business model than Google. Still, it can change over time, they can monetise our data, or when faced with legal hurdles, they wonât care so much about users. And itâs not open source, so we donât really know the extent of their E2EE, or other privacy protections.
But they add many privacy good features, hide my email, fingerprinting protections. Apple even brought profiles to safari on iOS, which other browsers do not have.
Yes, I did. I actually remove apps from time to time, and minimise the number of notifications. Still, I need different software for personal and work purposes. So, a complete minimalism is really difficult for me. But thanks for the suggestion.
Certainly youâre not expecting a big business lobbying group, one whose backers largely profit from closed-source software, to tell you that open-source is where its atâŠ
Edit: one of the poorest countries in the world, Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, apparently has made a sizeable donation to this organization. Oh, and ever heard of Ukrainian company Burisma? Theyre seemingly involved in that too (Atlantic Council - InfluenceWatch - InfluenceWatch). Seems to be a platform to exchange political and business favors
If you want to avoid big tech and you dislike the walled garden, I think you should move to something that fits what you like. Maybe like GrapheneOS or DivestOS which are both open source and are not walled gardens. If money is an issue, the best I can say is to check out alternatives if you like them.
That is true, they do a lot more for privacy than things like Google. IMO, for the most sensitive stuff I would avoid iCloud email since they donât encrypt their emails. The less info you give is better.
Thatâs fair, digital minimalism isnât for everyone, but itâs good you took some important steps of removing apps. Yourâre welcome
When I get burned out trying to balance security, privacy and anonymity against usability, functionality and cost I say âThis is good enough for nowâ.
Then I submit more data broker opt-out requestsâș
Even though I dislike Meta and Whatsapp, this is not meaning that E2EE is broken. If a message is reported by users, then it is shared with moderators. It is an issue of privacy, not security. In a rare statement, Signal supported Whatsapp. There is no need for FUD. I did not delve deeper into this subject, but if they break E2EE, we should have seen them appearing in courts.
Moreover, if you are using the OS, all data can be already collected from your keyboard, other means. I wish everything could be open source. I tried GrapheneOS in my hobby phone, but I donât feel ready for the switch.
Thatâs the problem. Now, apple devices are the best choice for me. If I start to use grapheneOS one day, I can switch many services. In one day, I can move all my files, photos and other stuff, so I am not completely dependent. The only difficult part maybe aliases, still it is not a big deal.
Yeah, but we donât know to what extent they comply with.
What the âwhatsapp backdoor!!!1!!1â is in this case is actually the fact that users can report messages to Meta and those messages get saved to the userâs device then sent to Metaâs moderators to evaluate. Very scary and backdoor, I know.
Itâs literally broken, as thereâs also unencrypted metadata AKA PMPs attached to the userâs encrypted message, in which this metadata is visible to Facebookâand to law enforcement authorities or others that Facebook decides to share it with, as stated in the article.
As stated in the article:
Since the pen orders and their results are frequently sealed [by the court], itâs also difficult to say exactly what metadata the company has turned over⊠we donât know exactly what metadata is present in these PMPs, we do know itâs highly valuable to law enforcement.
Basically, no one knows the metadata content that was shared, whether it included even the messagesâ encryption key, etc.
My point is that if we canât possibly verify how their E2EE implementation works, as we donât see the source of the app, we canât assume that itâs actual E2EE as itâs supposed to be. Perhaps, thereâs a switch to turn off the targetâs E2EE, etc. We just donât know. All we know for sure is WhatsAppâs E2EE is useless and shouldnât be considered as anything more than oneâs peace of mind.
Yes, according to what everyone was told
Edit: Oh, I almost forget that this point is stated in the article also:
Although nothing indicates that Facebook currently collects user messages without manual intervention by the recipient, itâs worth pointing out that there is no technical reason it could not do so.
There is no technical reason why I couldnât just steal $3 million in cryptocurrency from a random schmuck but that doesnât mean Iâm going to risk doing it. Besides, the metadata is the most important commodity for governments and LE, and that isnât protected with Wapp so why go through all the trouble of adding automated message sharing when having actual proof of such would be even worse for their reputation than all the FUD for not much gain at all.
Whether they could have done that, or for why they did or didnât do that to any person, is another point entirely and doesnât relevant to this conversation regarding WhatsAppâs E2EE.
If you have anything related to the topic to discuss (WhatsAppâs E2EE implementation), please say so. Otherwise, please donât derail the topic further.
Just because you donât like someone challenging your âPROPRIETARY IS THE DEVIL 666â take doesnât mean Iâm derailing the topic. My absurd example is directly related to the matter at hand â why would Meta do something that would hurt their reputation further (and thus their bottom line) when the alternative is to lull people into a false sense of security using an E2EE app that doesnât protect metadata. Signal seems to think itâs important to argue with the facts, theyâve defended Wapp in the past with regards to prior FUD around the encryption used (someone linked the article further up in the thread)
