Wiping the WhatsApp chat history on the old phone before giving it to a new owner is also much more important. It often contains highly embarrassing or even incriminating details.
In ecology, it's rare to species compete to extinction or exclusion from a niche. It's much more common to observe segmentation. It's a lower energy state for birds to mate at different times, eat leaves from different parts of the same tree, etc., dividing the resources of their niche among themselves, than to force each other out of the niche completely.
The situation is analogous. I'm sure they'd destroy each other if they could, but it's obviously not happening right now. It's much easier to say, you can have your current users, we'll have ours, and we'll focus our energy on capturing emerging markets. Which is why you see them racing to provide free internet to developing countries and such.
Don't ask me what's leading WhatsApp's legal department to believe that this feature doesn't comply with German privacy laws. It's quite puzzling. (I would've rather expected a feature like this to be mandated by EU laws.)
As of now, there's no non-hacky way of exporting chats for German users. (Hacky ways include: dubious third-party software, copying each message individually, taking screenshots.)
The net effect is that if you're switching you have to redo 2fa for all accounts where you haven't separately backed up your TOTP codes.
You can store data on Google Drive that isn't accessible from Google Drive and only that app can read or write it.
But why would WhatsApp store it unencrypted on Google Drive, and encrypted (without giving you any access to the key) on your own SD card or local backup? It makes no sense.
Except ... Google and Facebook have agreed that WhatsApp stores the database unencrypted, and in return Google doesn't count it against the user's quota. Everybody wins! Facebook get to have free backup for users, Google gets to see all user messages and metadata. And the user gets rid of this pesky privacy thing!
[0] https://faq.whatsapp.com/android/chats/about-google-drive-ba... - "WhatsApp backups no longer count against your Google Drive storage quota." and "Media and messages you back up aren't protected by WhatsApp end-to-end encryption while in Google Drive."
The design is pretty clearly to support the bog standard backup use case of "something happened to my device, I got a new one, I want my old data".
It would be nice if they added an option to also encrypt backups, although I think it would be non trivial to design where the key material would live. (phone enclave? Multiple devices? adding/removing devices? etc) Not to mention just having the option might cause more harm than good if people turn it on and regret it.
I think their design philosophy here is likely "let's err on the side of smooth UX and let the 'end-to-end encryption is srs bzns' loonies go to signal"
They already support encrypted backups. In fact, they don't support unencrypted locally.
> The design is pretty clearly to support the bog standard backup use case of "something happened to my device, I got a new one, I want my old data".
They had, in fact, perfected the local encrypted seamless "something went wrong" workflow - they keys are delivered from the server (stored or generated, I don't know) once you've proved you can receive texts on that phone number. Without that, the local backup is useless.
And IIRC, they ALSO did the same with Google Drive. But then, one day, it stopped counting against your quota and the encryption disappeared.
> I think their design philosophy here is likely "let's err on the side of smooth UX
The UI was as smooth as it can be. It still is, for local backup.
I try not to attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity, deadlines or missing budgets, but in this case, there was a decision to remove encryption, that required negotiating with a rival. That decision had costs, and the process had costs. There is a benefit associated or this decision would not have been taken. I don't know exactly what it is.
On one hand - even after end to end encryption, we continue to see WhatsApp messages quoted in prosecution including in SEC actions and prosecutors are clearly getting access to messages even pre-arrest. The ability of prosecutors to compell unlocking after arrest in US is questionable. So how are they getting access to the messages if there's truly end to end encryption? Also there are any number of Governments in the important non-US markets that would simply ban WhatsApp if they didn't have access against a warrant (eg. See BlackBerry cases from some years ago)
On the other hand, no security researcher seems to have found or at least reported a back door in the WhatsApp apps that supports MITM undetectable to physical key verification which is the obvious weakness in an end to end encryption system based on centralised key repository system.
On the gripping hand, all high profile cases trying to compell tech companies to provide evidence have been against Apple. I've not heard of one against WhatsApp.
Ergo - the most like scenario is that this feature is deliberately built keeping messages un-encrypted so that when law enforcement shows up with a warrant or a muzzled warrant, they can just hand over the archive without weakening their app. People are convinced to opt in because it's the only way to change devices while keeping your messages. To give people comfort that unencrypted messages ate safe, it is sold as as "it's in your own Google drive"
But, you know -- they gave the same kind of info (and much, much more) to firms like Cambridge Analytica for free for years. So perhaps they didn't even get more in return.
Facebook's purchase of WhatsApp was OKd by EU regulators subject to some constraints, e.g. that they don't use WhatsApp data to enhance FB graph and/or gain other unfair advantages. FB has since admitted to using WhatsApp metadata in violation of that constraint (and didn't even get a slap on the wrist) - and perhaps giving the data to Google is also part of playing dumb. I don't know, but I'm sure it has everything to do with benefit for FB and GOOG, and almost surely at the expense of user privacy.
The Google Drive backup is most likely still encrypted, just not "end to end" because the key needs to be stored on a Facebook server.
That makes a lot more sense to me.
some serious cognitive dissonace is going on - either that or it's the effects of the news-cycle making us blind to it. Maybe we should think twice before applauding FAANG engineers in future posts because Technology isn't neutral.
note: a company can't be evil. it's just a group of people who can be evil and who hide behind the facade of the "legal person" statute. I'm happy to celebrate individual breackthroughs but let's not forget that without (metaphorically) nailing the culprits to the cross who are responsible for ICE contracts or privacy invasive tech there isn't even a point in complaining about all the horrid stuff these people (working for these companies) do.
It's like Kierkegaard's example of the mob who collectively intimidates but every member argues they have contributed virtually nothing, and so any sort of responsibility is simply dissolved.
Anyone who is responsible needs to be aware of the holistic system that they're part of and that they are enabling rather than just their own little world. That's no excuse.
Consider this menu of possible ways to be associated with a human rights violation:
- Do it yourself.
- Be a part of the chain of command that ordered it.
- Be commanded by the chain of command that ordered it.
- Be part of the same organization as the one that contains the chain of command that ordered it.
- Be a member of the society that contains the organization that contains the chain of command that ordered someone to do it.
- Be a member of another society, that could have tried to stop it, but didn't.
Where do we switch from participant to accomplice to bystander to "completely uninvolved?"
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist.
edit: In case it isn't clear: You just chose sides right there in your comment.
yes - and I've done incredibly well during it. I also know change doesn't come for free. the sad thing is the bigger the companies the smaller the spines of the individuals working there.
We all put thoughts into our own well being. When sufficiently comfortable or successful at that we start caring for people we interact with on a daily basis. When that too is a reasonable success we start doing stuff for people we interact with less frequently. At some point you can chose to go look for people who need our help, do something for the town, the city, the country, humanity etc There is tremendous joy to be had in this process and it builds character. I admire people like that.
People who don't do it are missing out. They in stead keep telling themselves they can't do anything for others knowing they are lying. The endless rationalization of the irrational takes a huge amount of time until they graduate themselves in the DIY course in psychopathy. In their ego trip they end up feeling sorry for themselves. In their self inflicted blindness to what misfortune looks like the self pity knows no boundaries. Also: no one loves me! I wonder why that is? They keep trying to spend money to buy happiness but all they get is cheap thrills. Some end up in a pathetic cycle where all they can do is expand their wealth, ignoring even their partner and their kids. They don't have time for that, they have important other things to do. I pity people like that. If I can think of some way to help them with their condition I will do the responsible thing.
But they also produced some really cool tech. Unix being the obvious one to bring up on this site.
That era is romanticized to hell (including by me), and Ritchie, Thompson, and the like are folk heroes. Despite being engineers at the subsidiary of a giant monopolistic entity.
Ultimately, for people who think the tech is cool, it doesn't matter where it comes from. In 50 years people will be romanticizing the era of the FAANG companies (more than they already do) the same way we romanticize bell labs.
That said, with FB/Google these days the bad weighs more than the good.
just because we made the mistake to let them become this big without giving them criticism doesn't justify why we should continue treat them with gloves. quite the opposite. they shouldn't feel comfortable at all in their position - they should feel like they're being held accountable (and act accordingly whether with rebelling internally or by leaving depending on the size of their spine)
On android? On iOS you can get a tarball of all your chats.
As much as I'm happy to pile on Google, Facebook and WhatsApp, this appears to be untrue.
The statement that "Facebook gives an unencrypted copy of your chat database to Google but will not give it to you" is true; I'm referring to the SQLite database. You can back it up locally, but it's encrypted and Facebook will not willingly give you the key under any circumstance (though it is possible to trick them by impersonating the app). However, the Google Drive backup is unencrypted. But Google won't let you download it directly either (although, again, you can trick them by impersonating the app).
Recently I was trying to switch my wife away from the free Keeper app to the one I use and backup to our own storage, they make it impossible to get your passwords without paying them or rooting your phone. I hand copied them one by one from her old to new phone. Honestly, screw any company that does this.
if that's the case then facebook can't "give you" the key, because they don't have it, it's supposed to be on your phone and only there..
Is there something i'm missing here ?
They make a copies of that plaintext database for backup purposes:
One on google drive (not mandatory, but it IIRC by default), which is still plaintext but not accessible to yourself.
One on your local SD card (if you ask for it), which is encrypted with a key that's on your phone but was sent down from FB servers. If you switch your phone, and try to restore that database, it will contact FB servers to retrieve the key.
> if that's the case then facebook can't "give you" the key, because they don't have it, it's supposed to be on your phone and only there..
Regardless of the backup encryption, e2e doesn't mean that they don't have the key; it just means that it leaves one phone encrypted and enters the other encrypted without being decrypted along the way -- unlike, e.g. regular email, which is usually encrypted in transit by TLS, but gets decrypted and re-encrypted at every stop along the way.
But you can export all chats one by one.
When you make a local backup, it is encrypted, and Facebook doesn't think you deserve a copy of the key or an unencrypted copy.
Or do you demand that any file under your control that contains chat should be accessible, rather than just one of them?
You can't download it without impersonating the WhstsApp app.
Do you know if the icloud backup is encrypted or not?
Haven’t seen anything like this before.
Convert all active whatsapp contacts to signal? 80%? 50%?
Same for Facebook messenger!
It needs to be uncomfortable enough - if they want to communicate with us and are minimally tech savvy ("click link to install app") they have to switch to signal.
That's it.
I'm starting to send out messages over my morning coffee.
Let's do this together:
https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007060592-In...
1. There are tons of replies in this thread. People have very strong feelings about signal.
2. Some people feel VERY STRONGLY that the pin numbers are stupid, and it has a terrible UX.
3. Some people feel VERY STRONGLY that the phone numbers are the simplest, most straightforward thing to use, and they would hate Signal if they didn't support it.
4. Some people feel VERY STRONGLY that they don't want their phone number used as an identifier, and it's a failure of Signal that they use them.
And it seems like many of these replies assume that their own position is the only possible one to take (or at least the only intelligent one!).
Imagine working on Signal and trying to create a product that pleases all these people, as well as even less technically minded folks, while having none of the usual analytics at your disposal to measure actual user interaction!
My hat's off to Signal. I admire their work but I don't envy their position.
At this point, none of us even use phones, my family pretty much use Zoom and at work everything is Google Meet, my phone function is basically a dead function at this point.
You can make the argument that I don't truly “owns” the domain name off of which my e-mail address hangs, either, but it's a much better situation than phone number ownership. There, at least, the constraints of ownership (rental) are clearly defined, as is my ability to move it between registrars.
My email represents me, and I fully own it with minimal upkeep costs.
Yes I think they suck, but do they suck more or less than en email? Not clear.
I'm a core contributor at Status, and the team I'm on is currently developing a desktop client[1] to complement the mobile client. We have alpha builds for Linux and macOS, and soon Windows.
Status uses the Waku[2] protocol.
One thing: I don't think it's unusual for a user to have little/no interest in the wallet or dapp browser. In that case they simply use it as a chat app that's focused on privacy and security while ignoring the other features.
The uptake? Like ~30% of the people I'd like to contact bother with it. The rest, it's even worse - we get stuck with SMS. And a lot of conversations I just miss, period, because they're groups of people in one of those other ecosystems (and missing those is a price I'm personally OK with paying, but not everybody will be).
The situation is just really bad. Signal is a good baby step forward, but it's not really the answer for most people, because they're sticky to wherever their network graph of contacts already is, and they're not going to switch just because the one weird nerd in their life isn't available there.
are you OK with THAT? You support children harassment by cops?
Throw some biased media page calling big companies bad. Not a hard thing to do today or write an opinion piece on popular news journal site and reference it. Medium works too.
We also need to cancel people for supporting these platforms.
And after it started insisting on creating a PIN each time I start Signal, I finally deleted it from my phone.
You can forget about security if you can't get a seamless user experience.
Plus, it's just a terrible UX for a SMS client. I really wanted to like it, but it's just too obnoxious to use. I've certainly not recommended it, I've had better luck switching relatives to Linux mint (seriously, I am not exaggerating). Creating a group MMS is annoying, and there's a nag screen if you try to call someone from a message within the app. I understand that most of these problems are due to the secure nature of the app, but trying to use it as your full-time SMS client is just too much of a pain. I'll likely still keep it installed, as the 1 thing it does do is make it really easy to transfer files/send messages between devices (send messages to yourself, then download them using the client's for other OS's).
Personally, I don't feel the UX is "terrible", I can use it to do most of the things that I could do in WhatsApp. My friends and I also tested out the video call feature and found the quality to be the same, if not better.
That has never happened to me.
The result is uncomfortable, since Signal never knows the other side removed it, so messages land in thin air. Several times did I have awkward moments when someone was angry "I thought you'd let me know if it was cancelled" - "I did - I sent you a text about that two days ago! On Signal!"
They can start by removing the atrocious phone number verification first.
Being forced to give them one of my 'most unique identifiers' (my phone number) was an absolute 'no'.
There are some good-looking and user-friendly clients
1. Shady addictive game requires full access to drive.
2. Shady game downloads all your chats with all contacts
3. FB is on fire since they allowed access to people's chats with others, even those who didn't download the game.
4. People get mad on FB/Google for not protecting their data.
Claiming that this is the reason is sort of like rearranging the chairs on the deck of the titanic when you can see the iceberg.
Much more likely it is to stop import/export to a competing app. The fact they will let you keep a local encrypted copy, but not an unencrypted one under any circumstances, is telling.
If we are to take the position that all users are tech literate and should be fully in charge of how their data is used, then even Cambridge analytica wasn't bad. People explicitly gave it access to data that was accessible to them. However, the uproar proves otherwise. People don't like it when they click yes yes and some random app has access to their social media data or messages. This is why Gmail also started requiring independent audit for all gmail apps.
SMS had the same problems forever, but isn't owned by a company, thus you can't blame xyz company if random apps access your SMS. No company got ever investigated by multiple nation states over that.
You still haven't addressed my main question though, how will a random app scraping your WhatsApp be any less of a scandal than Cambridge Analytica?
WhatsApp, a Facebook owned app, will not give you read access to your own chat database - it’s encrypted. But they have an arrangement with Google where it’s will back up unencrypted to your Google account (though, Google won’t let you retrieve it ... only the WhatsApp app can)
Everything about this duopoly, their cooperation and lack of competition stinks to high heaven.