Then they should write a story about it, because Bloomberg did not write the story their title claims they wrote.

> Investigators said earlier they had detained 16 people in the anti-terror raids after working with U.S. authorities to monitor suspects’ communications on WhatsApp Inc.’s messaging service.

I'd say that paragraph made it "close enough" to the original title, myself.

https://www.whatsapp.com/faq/en/general/21864047

http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/18/7239221/whatsapp-rolls-ou...

> "End-to-end" means that, unlike messages encrypted by Gmail or Facebook Chat, WhatsApp won't be able to decrypt the messages itself, even if the company is compelled by law enforcement. The company will set up the key exchange between users, but only the two users will have access to the conversation itself. There are other end-to-end encryption apps on the market — most notably Cryptocat, Silent Text and Telegram — but with over 600 million users across the world, WhatsApp is by far the largest platform to adopt the system.

Its pretty clear their claims of end-to-end encryption are BS and since they can gain access to the keys.

Then write the article analyzing their article and drawing that conclusion. They didn't write that. Submissions are community property; the person who submits an article does not get the privilege of summarizing it for the rest of the site, or of drawing conclusions for us. If you demand that privilege, you have to do your own writing to get it.

Maybe Whatsapp is just helping them connect who talked to whom, without actually being able to look at the contents?

Additionally these points are excellent as well:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9685977 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9685827 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9685801

Why should someone have to write a blog post that adds little more but what is already implicit in the title?

EDIT: The only reason I can think of is that someone might think Bloomberg wrote the title (because of bloomberg.com and possibly Google results). If that's the real reason, then fair enough. Otherwise it seems awfully silly.

So, at this point a could recommend twitter ? It's pretty nifty to make short statements and include a link to the article ? :D

Ultimately they did, but perhaps unintentionally.