Hacker News Reader

Comment by reitanqild | Hacker News Reader

Regular reminder that while CiPHPerCoder might very well be correct about MTProto - technically speaking - I find the recommendation to just use Whatsapp weird.

Haven't we agreed that metadata is data?

Isn't everyone aware that Facebook has stopped charging for WhatsApp?

Has anyone presented a good reason for what their reasons for running WhatsApp for free?

Because I doubt it's because of the goodness of Zuckerbergs heart.

I.e. to spell it out: they find you metadata so valuable they are willing to spend billions (!) to get hold of them.

Now I guess I wouldn't care much if it wasn't for the fact that WhatsApp used to be the fantastic. Nice, user friendly, robust and with a sane and user friendly way to generate income.

View on HN

The question you're asking isn't really about metadata, but rather who has custody if it. Your argument is not that WhatsApp is bad because it generates metadata --- WhatsApp leaks far less data to its provider than Telegram --- but rather than WhatsApp is bad because what metadata it generates goes to Facebook.

That's a fine, coherent argument. There are aspects of Scott's comment I disagree with too --- though I generally think most users are best served by WhatsApp.

If you don't want to use anything operated by Facebook, use Wire. Wire is based on Signal's double-ratchet model. It's encrypted by default. Wire's operators get much less data than Telegram's. Wire is operated out of Europe --- I don't think this matters but many people do.

The important thing is just that you not use Telegram for secure messaging. Telegram is deeply unserious about security. There are much better alternatives. If your friends want to use Telegram to decide which movie to see tonight, fine: I use Slack too, and Slack is probably only marginally more secure than Telegram. But don't use either of them for life-and-death secrets.

(In case anyone got lost halfway through tptacek's comment, my name is Scott.)

Yep. Now we are talking.

I readily admit that I don't trust the Telegram crypto. (And in case anyone wonders what that means: I might disagree with tptacek in a lot of things but here I agree. DO NOT use Telegram to send messages that might be dangerous if leaked.)

My point is that Telegram is good enough for what I use it for. It is probably more secure than many peoples email and unlike WhatsApp you can use it without supporting Facebook.

Again: DO NOT trust Telegram with your life. I disagree with tptacek in a number of issues but I trust him when he talks about crypto.

I know a lot of LGBT folks who use Telegram for non-serious stuff. Mostly shooting the shit, and using stickers for amusing reactions and whatnot.

My original comment probably should've used a semicolon before "Use Signal or WhatsApp instead."

> I find the recommendation to just use Whatsapp weird.

For most WhatsApp users, the alternative to WhatsApp for most people is unencrypted SMS, which gives metadata and the contents of the communication to anyone with modest skill and a $50 budget. I like to think WhatsApp's use of the Signal protocol makes it preferable to SMS.

So you'd rather give y;ur metadata to whatsapp which gives it to facebook than use telegram because there is a little chance that you'd be hacked? Strange choice as far as I am concerned

The majority of people want privacy in their messages and are not really concerned with their metadata.

Whatsapp fills that role and much better than telegram.

What definitive proof do you have that Whatsapp does really use encryption? Facebook's word?

I think we would found out by now that Whatsapp was not really encrypting messages. Plus, Moxie said they were using the Signal Protocol Lib for encrypting messages and I trust him 100x's more than any person who does not release information about their encryption and says, "trust us, our encryption works."

From the Signal Blog:

"Signal Protocol powers our own private messaging app, Signal. The protocol is designed from the ground up to make seamless end-to-end encrypted messaging possible and to make private communication simple. To amplify the impact and scope of private communication, we also collaborate with other popular messaging apps like WhatsApp, Google Allo, and now Facebook Messenger to help integrate Signal Protocol into those products."

I think, while it may not be out of the goodness of Zuckerberg's heart, it's the cost of keeping the Facebook monopoly. That, and the $19B they initially had to fork out.

Very reasonable explanation.

I'd still say though that if they bought WhatsApp for 19B only to stop accepting payments and run it for free to avoid competition then maybe the should be punished for being an evil monopoly.

Until then I'll continue muy little campaign against the guys who destroyed the good, privacy-focused WhatsApp and tried to feed our data into Facebook after first lying through their teeth about not being able to do that.

Summary: WhatsApp is now owned by a big, lying and likely also evil megacorp.[0]

Recommendation: avoid until Facebook change their ways, voluntarily or not. (No, I'm not against big companies, not against huge profits.)

[0]: big is easy to prove, lying is easy to prove and based on the way they lie and what they did to WhatsApp I guess they are evil.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com