Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:49:27 -0300
riveravaldez <riveravaldezmail@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm getting pretty confuse with these statements.
>
> On 3/18/21, Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> wrote:
> > (...)
> > I definitely share your concerns about Facebook (although perhaps
> > not quite your vehemence), but making **blatantly incorrect**
> > assertions like the claim that Facebook is one of the ends of
> > WhatsApp's E2E encryption does not help our cause.
> (...)
> > WhatsApp **apparently** has genuine end-to-end encryption, using the
> > Signal protocol, and neither of the ends is Facebook.
> >
> > Of course, it's closed source, so **we can't know for sure what's
> > really in there**, and I certainly won't use it, but as far as
> > **anyone knows**, it is **the real deal**:
>
> I added all the '**' to emphasize with precision what I find
> unacceptable. Taking them as a whole they are simply absurd, in a
> very rigorous, logic sense.
>
> Am I wrong in this, and altogether they conform a serious and
> reasonable argument?
>
> Because as far as I used to know, once you put one foot in
> closed-source clients territory you're no longer speaking about
> security but insecurity. The whole discussion becomes irrelevant,
> you're simply **having faith**
> - **in Facebook**, to make it even more intense - , which is, by
> definition, the opposite of reason, science or self-verified-security.
>
> Is that I'm completely wrong in this?
No.
>
> How can anyone **know** that WA's claimed E2E encryption is **the real
> deal**?
>
Not possible. Even if the original WA was clean, we can assume that any
updated version under new ownership will mine the maximum possible
amount of data.
If anyone doubts the lengths that some people will go to in order to
steal, look up Superfish, actually installed by Lenovo on new laptops a
few years ago. This is software designed and made to break https.
--
Joe
Reply to: