r҉ustic cy͠be̸rpu̵nk🤠🤖 is a user on mastodon.social. You can follow them or interact with them if you have an account anywhere in the fediverse. If you don't, you can sign up here.

Treat any product created or owned by an organization whose primary business model is selling user data as privacy compromised

"Protection of users' data a core tenet of whatsapp" :/
I get a bit fed up of this kind of rewriting of history. Whatsapp had a poor reputation for data handling before it was bought. There were many stories on h-online about it. Practices like sending your entire contact book to a server on the other side of the Atlantic are only "privacy respecting" through the silicon valley looking glass.

@priryo It's strictly a preemptive PR tactic and it does get very tiresome

As always, the app you can truly trust with your contacts is the one that doesn't have access to it in the first place

@cypnk @priryo Signal does have access to your contacts, doesn't it?

@cypnk signal also is linked to your phone number...
Actual (I know that may change quite often...) I am testing #wire open source code, account can be linked to email instead of phone. you may share your contacts (I don't).
Servers in EU (Switzerland and Ireland)
@loke @priryo

@cypnk I wondered when this was going to happen. Especially after Acton helped start the Signal Foundation (or whatever it's called). I didn't think FB would do something like this so close to the Cambridge Analytica ordeal.

@afterconnery At this point, I don't think they really care about scandals at all. They have 2 billion monthly users as of last year techcrunch.com/2017/06/27/face

That kind of market capture essentially means they can do whatever they want as long as users stay around

@cypnk I'm soooooo not surprised. Like not at all.

It even proves you just can't trust big companies which make money on your data with closed source and proprietary softwares...

@cypnk they didn't actually weaken the encryption, but they *wanted* to.

With less resistance from people who care, I assume they will end up doing it.

@feld Second to last paragraph and the one before have these two worrying sentences that make me believe the execs won out:

"Facebook executives wanted to make it easier for businesses to use its tools, and WhatsApp executives believed that doing so would require some weakening of its encryption.

Ultimately, Koum was worn down by the differences in approach"

To me that feels like a tacit admission that encryption is already weakened

@cypnk I would think if they screwed with the crypto that Moxie would be aware (and furious)

@feld I hope so. Honestly, it's hard for these kinds of projects to go anywhere without any kind of major funding. Besides, I think it was just a handful of people behind OWS

@cypnk in the end he advised to use signs huh. It really is kinda like WhatsApp in some things

@vaartis It is, but it’s a shame since so many people already know and use WhatsApp. It’s hard to get people to try new things

@cypnk What's surprising is that they didn't do it immediately after the acquisition.

@starbreaker Those pesky humans with integrity. Luckily, they’ve been demoralized enough to leave so the pillaging will commence soon

@cypnk I find it quaint that Zuck talks about "taking power from centralized systems and putting it back in people's hands".

I mean. Wat.

@rysiek @cypnk I'm starting to think that the NSA is a bunch of blundering amateurs compared to FB.

@willtochaos @rysiek @cypnk I heard a comment on risky.biz that shortly after the Snowden revelations someone at the NSA had said that if they could do 1/10 of what Google can do there'd be no more terrorism.

To that I'd like to add: and no more dissent.

@rysiek @cypnk No, he talks about the power of encryption to do that. The value that will always be part of WhatsApp is never allowing encryption to do that.

@cypnk They mean proprietary code from a mass surveillance company is not trustworthy? That's insane… Who would've thought?