Hacker News Reader

Comment by subliminalpanda | Hacker News Reader

WhatsApp calls are made to a different port; I worked at a teleco in Oman and that's how they blocked the calling feature while keeping messaging alive.

View on HN

To localize this behavior to the US as an example, Verizon wireless is known to block SIP traffic coming and going out of port 5060; it's entirely possible the Saudis are engaging this very similarly and have effectively blocked traffic, encrypted or not coming and going to a specific protocol port.

So I don't think saying "there's no way to tell" is entirely accurate

I believe you would be correct in your assumption. I asked one of the engineers how they did it and that's what they told me to much chagrin.

Seems like WhatsApp could easily choose to use a different port if they wanted to, but I guess this comes back to not wanting to have their encrypted messages get blocked.

Yeah, if they push back too much the Saudis would most likely just outright ban the entire service.

VoIP traffic is UDP, and will always be very easy to identify. We barely have functional circumvention strategies for higher-latency traffic types, so building a circumvention strategy for traffic like realtime voice with ultra low-latency requirements is a tall order. Honestly getting VoIP to work well in the best possible network scenarios is enough of a challenge.

I assume that higher latency communication like WhatsApp's push-to-talk "voice notes" works just fine in SA though.

I can't speak for SA but a lot of folks in Oman would message each other voice messages as a compromise.

That would be a good explanation for this behavior, then.

Your telco sucks.

The telco doesn't have much of a choice, as the rules are administered by the TRA (telecommunications regulatory authority), and by proxy, state security.

No one that worked there wanted to do it, but refusing to do so would be reason to have them dismissed from their jobs.

Many employees are expats; leaving their jobs would mean a loss of their residence and thus deportation.

Such is life in a police state.

I correct myself, then: Your police state sucks.

> but refusing to do so would be reason to have them dismissed from their jobs.

I've quit jobs on principle before. The key is to have a nest egg.

> Many employees are expats; leaving their jobs would mean a loss of their residence and thus deportation.

Could they find another job?

> I correct myself, then: Your police state sucks.

Police states are very shitty indeed.

> I've quit jobs on principle before. The key is to have a nest egg.

A lot of the expats come from Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, India, and occasionally Eastern Europe. Almost all of them that I know have families they need to support (immediate and sending remittances), and the money is a lifeline. Being deported back and/or being blacklisted from the GCC is a life-ruining scenario. Getting visas to the west is not always an option.

>Could they find another job?

It's possible, but all countries in the GCC operate under a Kafala (sponsorship) system. Having it revoked in one GCC member state raises complications in others.

For those wondering, GCC = Gulf Cooperation Council, not the compiler.

(edit for clarity)

Even better solution: All the WhatsApp users in Saudi Arabia should move to another country.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com