Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by ses1984 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

ses1984

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XKeyscore

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(intelligence_o...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/uk/nsa-staff-used-spy-...

Millennials and older generations witnessed this happening bit by bit, some of us tried to fight it, but ultimately it’s everywhere now, and apparently it’s been so ubiquitous for so long that people aren’t even aware of it anymore.

View on HN

I am the person who asked for the source.

1) I do not believe for a second that Meta would actually implement something that would remove their own ability to read those messages.

2) We do not have any proof that their claimed e2e chat service is actually compromised.

The matter of fact tone of the parent made me think there was some actual proof or at least something more than speculation. That's why I asked for a source.

I am not sure I understand what you’re saying.

If meta can read those messages, then they’re most definitely not e2e encrypted.

Given the historical record, you would be a fool to assume that any service run by a public company isn’t fully tapped by US intelligence agencies. They’ve been tapping anything and everything they can get their hands on, why stop at whatsapp?

Let me flip it around: what proof do you actually have that it is e2e encrypted? Zuckerberg pinky promised?

You didn't actually flip it around at all.

They're stating they doubt Meta would ever allow full e2ee, which is not evidence but simply speculation.

AND

They asked for a source/evidence to prove their hunch is more than speculative.

What standard of proof is required here? It’s not criminal court.

The original post I replied to simply asked for proof, without also stating they doubt meta would ever allow e2ee.

My post is more directed at other readers who might take the absence of a smoking gun as an assumption of safety.

Not a single link has anything on OPs claim.

You’re right, so that must mean whatsapp is totally safe, right?

Both can be untrue...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com