This thread is about an in-the-works lawsuit and their claims about WhatsApp’s e2ee. I dont see any direct relevance. If you do see one, then you do you. It’s just curious is all.
I get the sense @anon98749087 and the people here countering them are talking past each other.
My interpretation is
- @anon98749087
- Is discussing trust, not legal burden of proof, and people have a right to choose to distrust a technology (WhatsApp in this case) without proof.
- We in the privacy community have distrusted many other technologies because they are closed source, so why not also distrust WhatsApp?
- People countering @anon98749087
- Are discussing legal burden of proof, and WhatsApp is not (yet) proven to have deceived everyone w.r.t. encryption.
- Want to see evidence before spreading allegations that WhatsApp’s encryption provides no confidentiality, for instance, telling WhatsApp users that WhatsApp’s encryption is compromised.
Is the above correct or am I misinterpreting?
I would never use WhatsApp, at least not willingly, and I have told people WhatsApp is unsafe, saying that Meta is a surveillance company and WhatsApp is closed source, but will not (yet) tell others WhatsApp’s encryption is compromised.
3 Likes
Isn’t the point of the lawsuit is to bring WhatsApp internals/tech details into public view? The lawsuit forces WhatsApp to prove its claims about E2EE, the next step is getting those out of the courtroom and onto GitHub and into newspapers.