Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #148822 > unrolled thread

“Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion.

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-13 20:47 +0200
    Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-06-13 20:34 +0100
      Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-13 23:07 +0200
        Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-13 23:11 +0200
    Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-06-14 01:03 -0500
      Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-14 14:59 +0200
        Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-06-14 09:08 -0500
          Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-06-14 16:28 +0200
            Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-06-14 16:14 +0100
              Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-06-14 17:01 +0100
                Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-06-14 19:35 +0200
              Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-06-14 19:29 +0200
              Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-06-15 00:34 +0200
          Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-14 19:55 +0200
            Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-06-14 22:28 +0200
              Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-14 23:41 +0200
        Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-06-14 16:27 +0200
          Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-14 19:57 +0200
            Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-06-14 19:50 +0000
              Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-14 23:48 +0200
                Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-06-15 00:15 +0100
                  Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Bob Henson <bob.henson@outlook.com> - 2025-06-15 09:05 +0100
                  Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-17 01:40 +0200
                    Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-06-18 11:43 +0100
                      Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-18 14:19 +0200
                  Re: ?Localhost tracking? explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-06-22 10:15 +0000
                    Re: ?Localhost tracking? explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-22 13:30 +0200
                      Re: ?Localhost tracking? explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-06-22 19:20 +0000
                        Re: ?Localhost tracking? explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-22 21:40 +0200
                    Re: ?Localhost tracking? explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-06-22 23:17 +0100
                Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-06-15 03:42 +0000
                  Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-17 02:00 +0200
              Re: ⤽Localhost trackingâ€? explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Joerg Walther <joerg.walther@magenta.de> - 2025-06-15 11:45 +0200
            Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-06-14 20:51 +0100
              Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-06-14 22:34 +0200
                Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-06-14 21:45 +0100
              Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-06-15 03:46 +0000
                Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-06-15 09:49 +0100
            Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-06-14 22:29 +0200
              Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-14 23:43 +0200
                Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-06-15 07:10 +0200
                  Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-17 01:51 +0200
      Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-06-15 00:32 +0200

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#148822 — “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion.

It is a very perverse method to steal user data, fooling regulators and 
operating system designers. On Android phones only, if the facebook or 
instagram app are installed and a session has been opened at some point 
in time. Not clear about WhatsApp/Messenger


<https://www.zeropartydata.es/p/localhost-tracking-explained-it-could>

     Zero Party Data (EN version)
     *“Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion.*
     You just can't finish off Zuckerberg.
     Jorge García Herrero
     jun 10, 2025

     What happened?

     Meta devised an ingenious system (“localhost tracking”) that 
bypassed Android’s sandbox protections to identify you while browsing on 
your mobile phone — even if you used a VPN, the browser’s incognito 
mode, and refused or deleted cookies in every session.

     Next, we preview what may (and should) become the combined 
sanctioning smackdown of the century, and then we explain — in simple 
terms (because it’s complicated) — what Meta was doing.

     *It smells like record fine spirit*

     Meta faces simultaneous liability under the following regulations, 
listed from least to most severe: GDPR, DSA, and DMA (I’m not even 
including the ePrivacy Directive because it’s laughable).

     GDPR, DMA, and DSA protect different legal interests, so the 
penalties under each can be imposed cumulatively.

     The combined theoretical maximum risk amounts to approximately €32 
billion** (4% + 6% + 10% of Meta’s global annual revenue, which 
surpassed €164 billion in 2024).

     Maximum fines have never before been applied simultaneously, but 
some might say these scoundrels have earned it.

     If you want to go straight to the breakdown of infractions and 
penalties, click here.



     ... (continues on the link)




-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#148827

Carlos E.R. wrote:

> It is a very perverse method to steal user data, fooling regulators and 
> operating system designers. On Android phones only,
Isn't this a dupe of Richmond's thread entitled

"Delete this spyware: Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148830

On 2025-06-13 21:34, Andy Burns wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 
>> It is a very perverse method to steal user data, fooling regulators 
>> and operating system designers. On Android phones only,
> Isn't this a dupe of Richmond's thread entitled
> 
> "Delete this spyware: Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp"

I don't know.

[...]

Yes, it is the same issue. I did not read the link at the time, and 
there was no summary.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148831

On 2025-06-13 23:07, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-06-13 21:34, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>
>>> It is a very perverse method to steal user data, fooling regulators 
>>> and operating system designers. On Android phones only,
>> Isn't this a dupe of Richmond's thread entitled
>>
>> "Delete this spyware: Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp"
> 
> I don't know.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Yes, it is the same issue. I did not read the link at the time, and 
> there was no summary.

Well, the second article studies the fines the EU could impose on Meta.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148836

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> It is a very perverse method to steal user data, fooling regulators and 
> operating system designers. On Android phones only, if the facebook or 
> instagram app are installed and a session has been opened at some point 
> in time. Not clear about WhatsApp/Messenger
> 
> <https://www.zeropartydata.es/p/localhost-tracking-explained-it-could>
> 
>      Zero Party Data (EN version)
>      *“Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion.*
>      You just can't finish off Zuckerberg.
>      Jorge García Herrero
>      jun 10, 2025
> 
>      What happened?
> 
>      Meta devised an ingenious system (“localhost tracking”) that 
> bypassed Android’s sandbox protections to identify you while browsing on 
> your mobile phone — even if you used a VPN, the browser’s incognito 
> mode, and refused or deleted cookies in every session.
> 
>      Next, we preview what may (and should) become the combined 
> sanctioning smackdown of the century, and then we explain — in simple 
> terms (because it’s complicated) — what Meta was doing.
> 
>      *It smells like record fine spirit*
> 
>      Meta faces simultaneous liability under the following regulations, 
> listed from least to most severe: GDPR, DSA, and DMA (I’m not even 
> including the ePrivacy Directive because it’s laughable).
> 
>      GDPR, DMA, and DSA protect different legal interests, so the 
> penalties under each can be imposed cumulatively.
> 
>      The combined theoretical maximum risk amounts to approximately €32 
> billion** (4% + 6% + 10% of Meta’s global annual revenue, which 
> surpassed €164 billion in 2024).
> 
>      Maximum fines have never before been applied simultaneously, but 
> some might say these scoundrels have earned it.
> 
>      If you want to go straight to the breakdown of infractions and 
> penalties, click here.
> 
>      ... (continues on the link)

So, we're back to how WebRTC can be abused to identify you.  While the
desktop web browsers let you disable WebRTC through settings, the
deliberately crippled mobile web browsers do not.  Alas, even the
desktop web browsers are taking away the option to disable WebRTC, so
you need an add-on for them, too.

You can test by visiting:

https://webbrowsertools.com/test-webrtc-leak/

https://ipleak.net/
(look under "Your IP addresses - WebRTC detection")

IPleak will still show your WAN-side IP address since every endpoint in
a connection needs to know who is connecting to it if only to send back
an ACK after granting a connection.  WebRTC, however, can divulge your
intranet IP addresses to, for example, map out your intranet.  

While it is easy to install an add-on to desktop web browsers that
blocks the WebRTC API, you'll have to check if your choice of mobile web
browser has a similar add-on (assuming it even supports add-ons).  Very
unlikely it will have a setting to disable the WebRTC API.

Be aware that disabling the WebRTC API can break some web sites.
Probably best on mobile platforms to use a task killer where Facebook,
Instagram, and other socially needy apps (e.g., WhatsApp) get unloaded
instead of left running in the background when you "exit" the app.  Or,
you could wander into the OS app settings to each app to Stop them, and
repeat for each app, and each time you load the app.  Android doesn't
unload apps when you exit them, but leave them running in the background
until the OS decides that app's memory is needed for a newly loaded app.
This catches unaware lots of Windows and Linux that expect a program or
app to exit and unload, not lurk in the background.

It's one reason why I use web browsers on Android that can actually
exit.  Both Firefox and Edge have options to exit ... AND unload.  Else,
if, for example, you configured them to purge all locally cached data on
their exit, well, they have not actually exited until you choose their
Quit option to really unload them.  When left running in the background,
they have not exited, so purge-on-exit options don't get exercised.  The
same reason I don't all desktop web browsers to continue running
background processes when you supposedly exit them.  Or Edge's
performance startup option of preloading and leaving loaded some
msedge.exe processes on exit while only helps on really slow hosts when
next loading the web browser.  The vast majority of apps do NOT unload
when you close their window thinking you exited them, but you didn't.
Android sucks in pretending it is faster reloading apps by not unloading
them in the first place.

Even if using a VPN, WebRTC could still expose your IP addresses, so you
should test and a leak test site while using your VPN.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148837

On 2025-06-14 08:03, VanguardLH wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

...

> Be aware that disabling the WebRTC API can break some web sites.
> Probably best on mobile platforms to use a task killer where Facebook,
> Instagram, and other socially needy apps (e.g., WhatsApp) get unloaded
> instead of left running in the background when you "exit" the app.  

It is not practical to actually stop WhatsApp, because then you do not 
get new messages.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148838

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> On 2025-06-14 08:03, VanguardLH wrote:
>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>> Be aware that disabling the WebRTC API can break some web sites.
>> Probably best on mobile platforms to use a task killer where Facebook,
>> Instagram, and other socially needy apps (e.g., WhatsApp) get unloaded
>> instead of left running in the background when you "exit" the app.  
> 
> It is not practical to actually stop WhatsApp, because then you do not 
> get new messages.

They don't pend retrieval until the next time you load the app?  So, if
you're not addicted to the app to react like Pavolov's dogs to
immediately respond to a received message, you don't get to see the
message at all?  What happens when you power down your phone, or it's
battery goes dead from getting drained, and it's a while before you get
it charged to power on the phone?  All those messages sent while you
were offline are lost?  WhatsApp messages are real-time only?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148840

On 14.06.25 16:08, VanguardLH wrote:
> So, if
> you're not addicted to the app

Carlos like many others is. *SCNR*

-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148842

On 14/06/2025 15:28, Jörg Lorenz wrote:

> On 14.06.25 16:08, VanguardLH wrote:
>>> So, if you're not addicted to the app
> 
> Carlos like many others is. *SCNR*
What do the French railways have to do with it :-P

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148843

On 2025-06-14 16:14, Andy Burns wrote:
>
> On 14/06/2025 15:28, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>
>> Carlos like many others is. *SCNR*
>
> What do the French railways have to do with it :-P

Despite the smiley, I feel bound to point out that the acronyms don't 
match ...

	SNCF = Société Nationale des Chemins de fer Français

-- 

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: 
www.macfh.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148845

On 14.06.25 18:01, Java Jive wrote:
> On 2025-06-14 16:14, Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>> On 14/06/2025 15:28, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>
>>> Carlos like many others is. *SCNR*
>>
>> What do the French railways have to do with it :-P
> 
> Despite the smiley, I feel bound to point out that the acronyms don't 
> match ...
> 
> 	SNCF = Société Nationale des Chemins de fer Français

Andy tried to be funny I guess.


-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148844

On 14.06.25 17:14, Andy Burns wrote:
> On 14/06/2025 15:28, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> 
>> On 14.06.25 16:08, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>> So, if you're not addicted to the app
>>
>> Carlos like many others is. *SCNR*
> What do the French railways have to do with it :-P

*ROTFLSTC*

-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148865

Andy Burns, 2025-06-14 17:14:

> On 14/06/2025 15:28, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> 
>> On 14.06.25 16:08, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>> So, if you're not addicted to the app
>>
>> Carlos like many others is. *SCNR*
> What do the French railways have to do with it :-P

SCNR = "sorry, couldn't resist"



-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148847

On 2025-06-14 16:08, VanguardLH wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 2025-06-14 08:03, VanguardLH wrote:
>>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Be aware that disabling the WebRTC API can break some web sites.
>>> Probably best on mobile platforms to use a task killer where Facebook,
>>> Instagram, and other socially needy apps (e.g., WhatsApp) get unloaded
>>> instead of left running in the background when you "exit" the app.
>>
>> It is not practical to actually stop WhatsApp, because then you do not
>> get new messages.
> 
> They don't pend retrieval until the next time you load the app?  So, if
> you're not addicted to the app to react like Pavolov's dogs to

It is not addiction. We use WA to communicate, sometimes serious things. 
You can miss a meeting.

Messages are not lost, they are on hold for some time.


> immediately respond to a received message, you don't get to see the
> message at all?  What happens when you power down your phone, or it's
> battery goes dead from getting drained, and it's a while before you get
> it charged to power on the phone?  All those messages sent while you
> were offline are lost?  WhatsApp messages are real-time only?


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148856

On 14.06.25 19:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-06-14 16:08, VanguardLH wrote:
>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2025-06-14 08:03, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Be aware that disabling the WebRTC API can break some web sites.
>>>> Probably best on mobile platforms to use a task killer where Facebook,
>>>> Instagram, and other socially needy apps (e.g., WhatsApp) get unloaded
>>>> instead of left running in the background when you "exit" the app.
>>>
>>> It is not practical to actually stop WhatsApp, because then you do not
>>> get new messages.
>>
>> They don't pend retrieval until the next time you load the app?  So, if
>> you're not addicted to the app to react like Pavolov's dogs to
> 
> It is not addiction. We use WA to communicate, sometimes serious things. 
> You can miss a meeting.

Something is terribly wrong with your statement as we learn every day:
Serious or important things should never be communicated over WA. It is
that simple. The topic of this thread is confirming this strongly.

-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148860

On 2025-06-14 22:28, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 14.06.25 19:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2025-06-14 16:08, VanguardLH wrote:
>>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-06-14 08:03, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> Be aware that disabling the WebRTC API can break some web sites.
>>>>> Probably best on mobile platforms to use a task killer where Facebook,
>>>>> Instagram, and other socially needy apps (e.g., WhatsApp) get unloaded
>>>>> instead of left running in the background when you "exit" the app.
>>>>
>>>> It is not practical to actually stop WhatsApp, because then you do not
>>>> get new messages.
>>>
>>> They don't pend retrieval until the next time you load the app?  So, if
>>> you're not addicted to the app to react like Pavolov's dogs to
>>
>> It is not addiction. We use WA to communicate, sometimes serious things.
>> You can miss a meeting.
> 
> Something is terribly wrong with your statement as we learn every day:
> Serious or important things should never be communicated over WA. It is
> that simple. The topic of this thread is confirming this strongly.

Whatever. It is just a fact that WhatsApp is massively used to 
communicate important things every day here. Politicians maybe use Signal.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148839

On 14.06.25 14:59, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-06-14 08:03, VanguardLH wrote:
>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>> Be aware that disabling the WebRTC API can break some web sites.
>> Probably best on mobile platforms to use a task killer where Facebook,
>> Instagram, and other socially needy apps (e.g., WhatsApp) get unloaded
>> instead of left running in the background when you "exit" the app.  
> 
> It is not practical to actually stop WhatsApp, because then you do not 
> get new messages.

Simply the best that can happen. There are a lot of better messengers.
No mercy for the idiots that use Zuckerberg-crap.


-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148848

On 2025-06-14 16:27, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 14.06.25 14:59, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2025-06-14 08:03, VanguardLH wrote:
>>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Be aware that disabling the WebRTC API can break some web sites.
>>> Probably best on mobile platforms to use a task killer where Facebook,
>>> Instagram, and other socially needy apps (e.g., WhatsApp) get unloaded
>>> instead of left running in the background when you "exit" the app.
>>
>> It is not practical to actually stop WhatsApp, because then you do not
>> get new messages.
> 
> Simply the best that can happen. There are a lot of better messengers.
> No mercy for the idiots that use Zuckerberg-crap.

I'm sorry to say that about everybody in Spain uses WhatsApp, even 
businesses. Like the Bank. It is what it is.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148850

On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 19:57:41 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :


> I'm sorry to say that about everybody in Spain uses WhatsApp, even 
> businesses. Like the Bank. It is what it is.

Please ignore Joerg. He feels compelled to ROTFWL on every thread.
He has nothing to add. He's a worthless despicable human being.

Now... as for your point - I agree with you since I agree with anyone who
makes a sensible logical statement.

Even I use WhatsApp. And I care about privacy.
So I'm happy you (and Richmond) brought this up.

I don't understand the implications, but I can tell others that I use
WhatsApp for two sensible reasons, one of which is that it's what all my
relatives use on their mobile phones in Germany. So it's what works since
calling them would cost me an arm and a leg with international prices.

The other reason is the parents of both my great grandchildren use Apple
devices, so everything is blurry without using something like WhatsApp.

Sure, another messenger would work, but so does WhatsApp.
Caveat in the sig.

-- 
Google Messenger with RCS might work but therein perhaps goes my privacy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148862

On 2025-06-14 21:50, Marion wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 19:57:41 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
> 
> 
>> I'm sorry to say that about everybody in Spain uses WhatsApp, even
>> businesses. Like the Bank. It is what it is.
> 
> Please ignore Joerg. He feels compelled to ROTFWL on every thread.
> He has nothing to add. He's a worthless despicable human being.
> 
> Now... as for your point - I agree with you since I agree with anyone who
> makes a sensible logical statement.
> 
> Even I use WhatsApp. And I care about privacy.
> So I'm happy you (and Richmond) brought this up.
> 
> I don't understand the implications, but I can tell others that I use
> WhatsApp for two sensible reasons, one of which is that it's what all my
> relatives use on their mobile phones in Germany. So it's what works since
> calling them would cost me an arm and a leg with international prices.
> 
> The other reason is the parents of both my great grandchildren use Apple
> devices, so everything is blurry without using something like WhatsApp.
> 
> Sure, another messenger would work, but so does WhatsApp.
> Caveat in the sig.

That WhatsApp has been affected by this security leak is still unclear. 
The author of the article I posted doesn't know. Facebook and Instagram 
yes, certainly. But WhatsApp promises encrypted communications are kept 
private, end to end encryption. Listening to them would be a major 
breach of trust (except with a court order). This is not the same with 
Facebook, which is intended to publish things.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web