*gasp* Facebook weakened WhatsApp encryption so they could open it up for businesses by selling user data and making a profit
Oh wait, no. That’s not surprising at all
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.
@loke @priryo They're apparently not storing the contacts https://www.wired.com/story/signal-contact-lists-private-secure-enclave/
But of course, we just have their word for it
@cypnk @priryo @loke I remember when a friend installed Signal and let it send invites by text. I had to inform him it was a group text with all his contacts in that group. Fortunately he kept furries/furry-friendly people and (very religious) family in separate groups, so it didn't do the damage it could have done.
@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 https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/27/facebook-2-billion-users/
That kind of market capture essentially means they can do whatever they want as long as users stay around
@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