Starting with "Wow, what a stupid argument" is disrespectful. Consider that a kind statement will get your point across equally without coming off as a jerk.
While the value of Facebook is not what is principally questioned (it is rather a question of either trade negotiation or privacy legislation), the value loss of Facebook and Instagram ceasing to run in Europe is what Meta is using as pressure; addressing that isn't stupid.
Saying I use their tools and frameworks against privacy makes no sense.
I am not saying we should not address it. But his argument against privacy with frameworks and saying facebook did good is total irrelevant and make no sense.
Whatsapp does not have e2e encryption. They encrypt message traffic in transit between endpoints and their servers, but they have visibility to the data. They can and have retrieved messages for law enforcement.
End to end encryption is something fundamentally structurally different - only the two end points can decrypt the message.
Alice sends Bob a message. If only Bob can decrypt it, it's e2ee. If meta, the nsa, cia, IRS, post office, and random dudes on the internet pretending to be law enforcement all have access to the message, it's not e2ee.
Meta/Facebook sold the illusion of security to the masses. Let's not pretend they're the good guys.
> Whatsapp does not have e2e encryption. They encrypt message traffic in transit between endpoints and their servers, but they have visibility to the data. They can and have retrieved messages for law enforcement.
Can you provide a source for that? Here [1] they state that they use e2ee. Here [2] is a tweet by Moxie Marlinspike (the founder/one of the founders of signal), that whatsapp implemented the signal protocol. Is signal also not end2end encrypted?
Signal protocol is used between whatsapp server and endpoint, not from endpoint to endpoint. Once your message is on their server, it's decrypted, archived, inspected, and then passed to its intended recipient.
