>> WhatsApp is end-to-end encrypted so the service providers themselves can't read the message content, yes, definitely. Although, technically the security guarantees are nil unless you verify safety numbers which I can guarantee almost nobody actually does.

Except that there is no way to prove this. There is no way to prove that it isn't also sending a copy from the client back to the server. Whatsapp could deploy individualized specific clients to target users, perhaps at the behest of governments. The only full answer is totally open-source software with users able to cryptographically verify that they are downloading and running the same software as everyone else.

That's still not a full answer, of course, your proprietary operating system or closed chipsets can spy on you.

Absolutism isn't helpful IMHO, there is no true security in this world only degrees of trust and risk. You can always go one step further in securing a product but the first step still matters.

I think there's real value in companies implementing e2e (and it's hard! it's super hard politically to get this done when the business sees little value for the effort and I know this because I've successfully fought to get e2e into a product).

The reality from my point of view is that it takes idealists inside to convince a commercial entity to lock themselves out of value (commercial surveillance) they could capture. I find a company's stance on e2e to be a valuable signal.

Verifying the software one is running is not absolutism. Just because one cannot provide 'perfect' security isn't a reason to give up trying to provide some security by elevating the effort requires to conduct an attack. That locks can be picked isn't an excuse to not bother locking the door.

You'll note that logically a company cannot actually solve this problem themselves in a satisfactory way, since you would have the same problem trusting the verification mechanism as you did trusting their app in the first place.

What you want belongs as an operating system or app distribution mechanism concern. A third party OS extension might make sense. Even that's a bit fraught if there is any kind of dynamic code execution (aka code that appears at runtime, say, a web view).

AFAIR Whatsapp does send a copy of your messages to facebook if the messages flag the apps internal 'sounds-like-criminal-activity' scanner.

Do you have a reference for this please? All I can find is this "false alarm": https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/08/more_on_backd...

"We report all apparent instances of child exploitation appearing on our service from anywhere in the world to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC),"

https://faq.whatsapp.com/en/general/26000050

Something is being watched. I imagine they are hashing images and comparing them to a database.

Interesting, yep: https://faq.whatsapp.com/en/165022051727702/

Thank you.

The fact that one of the founders of Whatsapp left Facebook in a disagreement, leaving $850M of unvested options on the table, and took what he had earned to found the Signal Foundation is a pretty clear indicator towards something in that direction at least.

Do you have a source on that?

> Whatsapp could deploy individualized specific clients to target users, perhaps at the behest of governments.

How can Facebook/WhatsApp do this on Android or iPhone?

We one downfall of iMessage is that because they facilitate key exchange, Apple can add their own key to your profile and read all your messages.

Though, my limited understanding of iMessage is that if you were to sniff the network traffic you could detect this.

There's another downfall of iMessage. If you have iCloud backup enabled, your iMessage encryption keys are saved to iCloud, allowing Apple to decrypt your messages. And even if you disable iCloud backup, Apple can still read your messages if the person you're talking to has iCloud backup enabled.

This is not a secret, it's documented behavior. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 And it's not theoretical, because Apple does decrypt iMessage communications in response to law enforcement requests: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...

Are your iMessage encryption keys stored in iCloud? Or is a seperate copy of your messages (encrypted with a key Apple controls) uploaded to iCloud for sync?

Edit:

> Messages in iCloud also uses end-to-end encryption. If you have iCloud Backup turned on, your backup includes a copy of the key protecting your Messages. This ensures you can recover your Messages if you lose access to iCloud Keychain and your trusted devices. When you turn off iCloud Backup, a new key is generated on your device to protect future messages and isn't stored by Apple.

So Messages in iCloud is end-to-end encrypted, but if you enable iCloud Backup (a different product/feature), then your backup will include the key used to encrypt it.

You also have to trust the source code, or trust a recent audit, then also make sure the build you have kept it's integrity and matches the audit build.

There are degrees of security between "I personally built it from source using a compiler I personally built from source" and "Xi Jinping is CC'ed a plaintext copy of every message". The allegation here is that WeChat is basically the latter. No one makes any remotely similar claim about iMessage or WhatsApp.

If you have never read "Reflections on Trusting Trust" by Ken Thompson, I wholeheartedly recommend it. It's a short read (3 pages), but absolutely worht your time.

https://www.archive.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p7...

Why is your link downvoted?

People might've mistaken it for pedantry/condescension? I certainly didn't take it that way (gave it an upvote) -- though I have read that paper, and was thinking of it when I wrote my original comment :)

It was not my intention to be condescending. I legitimately enjoyed that paper (the technical part mostly), and thought it was relevant to what you were saying. I've found a lot of many interesting articles in hackernews comments and wanted to share one back.

You forgot "I personally built it from source using a compiler I personally built from source with a micro-compiler that I handcoded in assembly on a computer that I assembled from transistors myself."

But what if the transistors contain microchips that are phoning home?

Clearly the only solution is to forage your own silicon for artisanal fabrication of your own chips.

All of which you did inside a simulated world built for spying on you. There’s no theoretical ability to verify the whole stack.

How about "Mark Zuckerberg is CC'ed a plaintext copy of every message"

Better Zuckerberg than Xi. Zuckerberg has no power to have a bag put over anyone's head and have them carried away to the river.

Not yet anyway - remember his “listening” campaign and seeming murmurs of entering politics. He’s still young, unlike Winnie the Pooh...

Even if he did enter politics (in America), it’s not at all the same thing.

I wouldn’t trust him not to use all the tools at his disposal to grasp the levers of power. He’s a stone sociopath IHMO.

The question was: do we have any reason to believe it's more secure than weChat? I say yes but those are all valid points.

WhatsApp message content is secure, but metadata does get turned over in subpoenas.

> but metadata does get turned over in subpoenas.

A subpoena is another form of security, at least as far as a free society is concerned.

The question was: do we have any reason to believe it is more secure than weChat? I say yes.

Yeah I don't disagree, definitely the answer is yes - I was just adding some extra detail.

Fair enough, good points

whatsapp backups on google are not encrypted. anyone wanting to read the messages just has to ask google.

That is if you allow backups, and considering 99.9% of messages are unimportant faff, there's not much reason to.

I changed phones a while ago. Lost hundreds of thousands of messages. Didn't inconvenience me in the least. Anything important is on less ephemeral services like email or backed up manually.

iMessage is e2e encrypted but Apple has the key... so I would not consider this e2e....