Nope don’t even care about android. It wouldn’t be private once it’s on the device.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mark Zuckerberg: WhatsApp Is 'Far More Private and Secure' Than iMessage
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually reading the sentence quoted, what he said doesn't make any sense. Other than "disappearing messages" (you can just delete them) iMessage actually does have all the *security* features he mentioned.
Cross platform has nothing whatsoever to do with security and that seems to be the entire crux of his argument.
An argument has been made that iMessage is insecure because Apple manages all the encryption keys, but the same is true with Meta and WhatsApp.
Cross platform has nothing whatsoever to do with security and that seems to be the entire crux of his argument.
An argument has been made that iMessage is insecure because Apple manages all the encryption keys, but the same is true with Meta and WhatsApp.
If there's one person I trust to tell me about privacy and security it's Mark Zuckerberg.
Imagine if you could take all of the mass in the known universe and shrink it down to the size of a bowling ball. That's how heavy my sarcasm is on this one.
Imagine if you could take all of the mass in the known universe and shrink it down to the size of a bowling ball. That's how heavy my sarcasm is on this one.
i refuse to use whatsapp or any facebook product. i'd say the same thing if i had an android. it's not about whatsapp vs imessage for me. i detest facebook and won't go near them ever again.
It is one of the worst apps I have on my Mac. I would just delete it but some of my overseas customers use it. I have used it for 4 years but I still never let it have access to my contacts or anything else. I can't add a user but they can add me. Can't even drag & drop a picture or file on the Mac app. It's like a 10 year old app.
There are actually other, better options than Signal. Ones that don't require disclosing your phone number and exposing you to stalkers by announcing your presence on the platform.
Yeah it’s almost irrational at this point for me. Which is introspectively odd considering I try to be as objective as possible as much as possible. He/Meta have reached a point in my mind where I just automatically don’t trust/don’t believe anything, regardless of the facts.
While it's true that WhatsApp has end-to-end encryption that doesn't automatically make it private and secure
arstechnica.com
Yesterday, independent newsroom ProPublica published a detailed piece examining the popular WhatsApp messaging platform's privacy claims. The service famously offers "end-to-end encryption," which most users interpret as meaning that Facebook, WhatsApp's owner since 2014, can neither read messages itself nor forward them to law enforcement.
This claim is contradicted by the simple fact that Facebook employs about 1,000 WhatsApp moderators whose entire job is—you guessed it—reviewing WhatsApp messages that have been flagged as "improper."
The loophole in WhatsApp's end-to-end encryption is simple: The recipient of any WhatsApp message can flag it. Once flagged, the message is copied on the recipient's device and sent as a separate message to Facebook for review.
Messages are typically flagged—and reviewed—for the same reasons they would be on Facebook itself, including claims of fraud, spam, child porn, and other illegal activities. When a message recipient flags a WhatsApp message for review, that message is batched with the four most recent prior messages in that thread and then sent on to WhatsApp's review system as attachments to a ticket.
Although nothing indicates that Facebook currently collects user messages without manual intervention by the recipient, it's worth pointing out that there is no technical reason it could not do so. The security of "end-to-end" encryption depends on the endpoints themselves—and in the case of a mobile messaging application, that includes the application and its users.
The fact is thatFacebook's Meta's poor track record will make people trust them less than Apple.
WhatsApp “end-to-end encrypted” messages aren’t that private after all
Millions of WhatsApp messages are reviewed by both AI and human moderators.
arstechnica.com
Yesterday, independent newsroom ProPublica published a detailed piece examining the popular WhatsApp messaging platform's privacy claims. The service famously offers "end-to-end encryption," which most users interpret as meaning that Facebook, WhatsApp's owner since 2014, can neither read messages itself nor forward them to law enforcement.
This claim is contradicted by the simple fact that Facebook employs about 1,000 WhatsApp moderators whose entire job is—you guessed it—reviewing WhatsApp messages that have been flagged as "improper."
The loophole in WhatsApp's end-to-end encryption is simple: The recipient of any WhatsApp message can flag it. Once flagged, the message is copied on the recipient's device and sent as a separate message to Facebook for review.
Messages are typically flagged—and reviewed—for the same reasons they would be on Facebook itself, including claims of fraud, spam, child porn, and other illegal activities. When a message recipient flags a WhatsApp message for review, that message is batched with the four most recent prior messages in that thread and then sent on to WhatsApp's review system as attachments to a ticket.
Although nothing indicates that Facebook currently collects user messages without manual intervention by the recipient, it's worth pointing out that there is no technical reason it could not do so. The security of "end-to-end" encryption depends on the endpoints themselves—and in the case of a mobile messaging application, that includes the application and its users.
The fact is that
How many private info spills have you had? Please just go away.
I’m the bestest at everything.
There, I said words. They must be true.
There, I said words. They must be true.
You need to use an updated image of Zuck, he doesn't look like that anymore:
Zuckerberg: "We have a very comprehensive list of who we sell your personal data to, it is very secure."
In this argument, I don't think Zuck's got the legs to stand on
Right Zuck, cause after all these years of lying and not following through on what your company said it would do - you could be trusted to be an impartial judge in this case.
Facebook / Meta mentioned previously that the really profitable data harvesting for WhatsApp messaging was who was talking to who and when and that the E2E encryption of the messaging did not get in the way of that.
Facebook / Meta mentioned previously that the really profitable data harvesting for WhatsApp messaging was who was talking to who and when and that the E2E encryption of the messaging did not get in the way of that.
I would do that. I'd place Facebook / Meta at the bottom as the most untrustworthy of the big companies based on their past history, (Convicted Monopolist) Microsoft goes next, then a bit up from there is Google with Apple being a big step up (but not perfect) from them. JMHO.