Re: [tlug] Skype or Something Better: Whatsapp

[Furkan Mustafa <furkan@example.com>]

On 2017-02-19 14:59, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> steve writes:
>  > On 02/14/2017 10:49 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>  > >   > Whatsapp has end-to-end encryption once it is set up ... or so 
> the
>  > >   > message says.
>  >
>  > Is Facebook's ownership of Whatsapp a problem?
>
> No.
>
> It's *end-to-end* encryption.

I strongly disagree. Facebook is not giving gifts and presents to 
everybody,
and facebook is not fighting for anybody's freedom/privacy. And facebook 
is
not paying extreme amounts of money to purchase whatsapp for nothing.

It was still the same problem even before facebook bought whatsapp. But 
now
it's an even greater danger/problem, when used together with facebook 
massive
data.

It says "It's *end-to-end* encryption". And you have *absolutely no way* 
of
validating that or maintaining that belief, unless you get the sources,
compile and run the client software yourself. (I'm not considering the
security issues of the platform you'd use in this discussion). Even if
they're actually trying to provide some real end-to-end encryption in a 
way
they never has access to any keys or data; They still have the ability 
to
just push an extremely simple update to do so. And it's extremely easy 
to
hide that they're doing anything fishy. So it won't be a scandal at all.

There is the point of this being not just about the "message contents" 
too.

Any security provided by megacorps *means nothing*, and has never meant
anything before.

The correct approach should be to never spread conformism and ease of 
use
for security, and distrust megacorps ultimately, and stop calling people
who takes security seriously as 'paranoid', this topic is not a joke 
anymore,
and it's never about a single person's data/choices.

Furkan Mustafa