alfongj

> Say what you want about their security; they have the absolute best UX of any (primarily 1-on-1) messaging app, bar none.

> Discord is a close second. But the quality and polish of telegram blows me away to this day.

User experience is, well, subjective to the user. For tech savvy, primarily desktop users, Telegram and Discord can be great choices.

This is however probably not true for the majority of the population.

WhatsApp got there faster with no ads either

Narrative violation

There's so many possible confounding effects that it's hard to take this at face value.

This is the right answer. Matching user data without consent is becoming fairly risky from a data regulation standpoint, as well as user perception.

Right, but that doesn't compromise the security of the service necessarily.

Users can catch a malicious server injecting incorrect keys by looking at security notifications and comparing security codes. This is part of the Signal protocol.

This may be tedious but only needs to be done in the event of phone keys getting reset (a once in a year event?), as all companion device keys are automatically verified with signatures provided from an account owner's primary (phone) device

Source: https://www.whatsapp.com/security/WhatsApp_Security_Whitepap...

What's your concern?

I got mine two days ago

Please point to a single source from Apple claiming their mission is privacy.

WhatsApp group chats are end to end encrypted too. You must be thinking of... Telegram, where only secret 1:1 chats are end to end encrypted

Would e2ee really be guaranteed if a user sets an 8 char password? Because if so an attacker with control of the server could brute forcedly decrypt the encryption key, and in turn all DB contents for a user, no?

Apologies if this is covered somewhere in the docs, but I couldn’t find it.

Check your biases.

https://oversightboard.com/meet-the-board/

I love my Fitbit hardware but loathe their apps. After 5 years or so, they still suck at data synchronization.

I hope Google fixes this

From what I can read on the twit and GitHub, the researcher hasn't proven this works at scale.

The point of recaptcha is blocking "captcha farms" or automated bots from abusively creating accounts, buying tickets, etc.

The author hasn't demonstrated that this attack is effective in those scenarios. The only thing he has shown is a very convoluted way for a human to solve a recaptcha (harder for 99.9% of humans than the standard recaptcha experience)

That would explain why Google didn't care about them publishing this.

Apple has ads. Have you read their ToS / privacy policy?

Hi dmitriz! Yes. We have it (currently in iOS and Web, soon on Android), and we're eager to get feedback and work to improve it!

If you try it out, ping me at alfongj at google dot com and let me know what you think!