• Theroux Sonfeir@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    End->(public network)->WhatsApp->(public network)->End

    So, no stranger can read it.

    The key word is stranger. WhatsApp made the encryption you’re using and could (and I’m sure does) have the ability to decrypt it.

    True end to end is where you and your partner have keys and you both encrypt on the client side, and don’t tell the middle man. That way no malicious intent from the server could ever decrypt the actual message.

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      True end to end is where you and your partner have keys and you both encrypt on the client side, and don’t tell the middle man. That way no malicious intent from the server could ever decrypt the actual message.

      That’s how the Signal protocol they’re using is working

            • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You seem confused. E2EE doesn’t mean peer-to-peer. Signal protocol isn’t peer-to-peer. You don’t need to be peer-to-peer to have secure communication because E2EE makes it so that the server can’t read what the two ends are writing.

              • Theroux Sonfeir@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Can you prove to me that WhatsApp actually encrypts the message on the phone in such a way that WhatsApp can’t see the message when it’s on their server?

                Do you truly believe a company owned by Meta would provide that kind of security from THEM? A company whose income is profiting on DATA supplied by users?

                Tell me you believe this.

                • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  We know they certainly implemented it at one point. So it’s not a big ask to do that for Messenger. And like someone said, would probably benefit them too since don’t have to give info they don’t have. But with it being closed source, it can’t be verified if they’re using it now.

                  • Theroux Sonfeir@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Do you believe that Meta, if given the opportunity, would choose personal privacy over making money? It’s an easy yes, or no question to answer.