Signal President Blasts WhatsApp's Privacy Claims (cybernews.com)
- Reference: 0176830167
- News link: https://it.slashdot.org/story/25/03/26/1536221/signal-president-blasts-whatsapps-privacy-claims
- Source link: https://cybernews.com/news/whatsapp-signal-executives-battle/
While WhatsApp licenses Signal's end-to-end encryption technology, Whittaker said that WhatsApp still collects substantial user metadata, including "location data, contact lists, when they send someone a message, when they stop, what users are in their group chats, their profile picture, and much more." Cathcart had previously stated that WhatsApp doesn't track users' communications or share contact information with other companies, claiming "we strongly believe in private communication."
[1] https://cybernews.com/news/whatsapp-signal-executives-battle/
The chat has now been published (Score:3)
For those not following closely, The Atlantic published the text message thread a few hours ago: [1]Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal [theatlantic.com]
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/signal-group-chat-attack-plans-hegseth-goldberg/682176/
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Heh, your leaders are really an unbelievable bunch of cretins. Where did you dig em up?
Re: (Score:2)
It's the result of Fox News broadcasting fear and lies 24/7. Haitians are eating cats and the only way to stop them is vote republican.
Re: (Score:1)
Cool. But that doesn't speak to the security of Signal over WhatsApp. (Signal > WhatsApp) I could walk out of a SCIF with sensitive information and share it on a billboard, but that doesn't mean the SCIF wasn't secure.
Always the weakest link (Score:3)
Demonstrating once again that in the big picture of security, the strongest encryption available can be thwarted by any idiot user.
It's not WhatsApp isn't secure... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not WhatsApp isn't secure, it's that it literally CAN'T be secure. Security isn't a goal or a state of being, it's a process and when it comes to software code auditing is a required part of that process.
It doesn't actually matter if WhatsApp is "technically" secure or not. Their opaque code-base means none of us can ever verify their claims which means using their their platform requires a lack of due-diligence which is a failure of the process.
As if the lack of transparency isn't enough, we actually do know who control that code-base. The company controlling it seems to be a criminal conspiracy. Facebook has payed over $7 BILLION in penalties for 19 violations. [source: [1]https://violationtracker.goodj... [goodjobsfirst.org] ]. Can you trust an organization with a 20 year track record of defrauding the American people?
WhatsApp is not secure.
[1] https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/meta-platforms-inc
Re: (Score:2)
You mean his DUI hire secretary of defense fucked up.
Re: (Score:3)
If it's secure today tomorrow's mandatory update may not be
I'd never defend WhatsApp, but ... (Score:2)
in a strictly technical sense? Any given app CAN be completely secure, regardless of somebody auditing the code.
The "security process" you speak of only has relevance in the corporate world, where people want documentation that specific things were done. I have little faith that some code auditing process for "security" can really ensure a program is secure. Sure - they can check for obvious things like back-door passwords embedded in the code. But plenty of security issues aren't even well documented and c
Re: (Score:2)
Practically speaking though, is Signal any more trustworthy? You can look at the source code, but nobody does. Everyone installs from Google Play or the Apple Store. Signal could build a different version, or the NSA could lean on Google and Apple to distribute a backdoored version, either globally or to specific accounts.
You have to use Signal's servers too, no federation with ones in potentially better legal jurisdictions or under different entities control. Even if the messages are E2E encrypted, the ser