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

Groups > comp.misc > #591 > unrolled thread

Facebook buying WhatsApp

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Facebook buying WhatsApp "q.kontinuum" <achsis_of_elvis@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-02-20 00:02 +0100
    Re: Facebook buying WhatsApp Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-02-20 01:59 +0200
      Re: Facebook buying WhatsApp "q.kontinuum" <achsis_of_elvis@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-02-20 01:19 +0100
        Re: Facebook buying WhatsApp Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-02-20 09:20 +0200
          Re: Facebook buying WhatsApp "q.kontinuum" <achsis_of_elvis@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-02-20 17:34 +0100
      Re: Facebook buying WhatsApp RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-02-20 08:54 +0000
        Re: Facebook buying WhatsApp Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-02-20 11:36 +0200
        Re: Facebook buying WhatsApp Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-20 10:08 -0500
          Re: Facebook buying WhatsApp "tdk" <forum.tdk@squte.com> - 2014-02-20 10:38 +1038
            Re: Facebook buying WhatsApp Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2014-02-20 11:36 -0600
              Re: Facebook buying WhatsApp "Andy K." <andy.k466@gmail.com> - 2014-02-21 00:02 +0100
    Re: Facebook buying WhatsApp RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-02-20 07:17 +0000
      Re: Facebook buying WhatsApp Koen <koen.lefever@gmail.com> - 2014-02-20 15:38 +0000
      Re: Facebook buying WhatsApp "q.kontinuum" <achsis_of_elvis@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-02-20 17:18 +0100
        Re: Facebook buying WhatsApp "q.kontinuum" <achsis_of_elvis@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-02-21 17:17 +0100
    Re: Facebook buying WhatsApp Marek Novotny <mach2@hushmail.com> - 2014-02-20 10:09 -0600

#591 — Facebook buying WhatsApp

Just saw it on one of my standarf news sites:

http://newsroom.fb.com/News/805/Facebook-to-Acquire-WhatsApp

I don't know yet what to make of it. WhatsApp didn't have a strong
reputation of mining the data or trading it. I didn't feel 100%
comfortable using it, but I didn't feel to bad either. This will now
change from my perspective. Are there any decent peer to peer
services? Where connections are managed from a central place, but
communication happens peer to peer rather than centralized? Or is
there a solution providing good enough encryption? Any good concept
for encrypted chat for laymen? (I.e. key creation and configuration
should be fairly simple, security should be verifiable to a certain
extent etc.)


-- 
Trolling is a art!

My public-key is available on http://tinyurl.com/ps9r99y

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#592

"q.kontinuum" <achsis_of_elvis@yahoo.co.uk>:

> Are there any decent peer to peer services? Where connections are
> managed from a central place, but communication happens peer to peer
> rather than centralized? Or is there a solution providing good enough
> encryption? Any good concept for encrypted chat for laymen? (I.e. key
> creation and configuration should be fairly simple, security should be
> verifiable to a certain extent etc.)

Once IPv6 takes over, you won't need any service in between. Everybody
just needs to run a daemon (aka "app") on their edge device and form
whatever groups they need.

Encryption and authentication will be tricky. Hand-delivering public
keys won't scale so you will need a trusted external party. I can't see
a better long-term choice but the government.


Marko

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

#593

On 2014-02-19, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> "q.kontinuum" <achsis_of_elvis@yahoo.co.uk>:
>
> Once IPv6 takes over, you won't need any service in between. Everybody
> just needs to run a daemon (aka "app") on their edge device and form
> whatever groups they need.

A problem might be the caching: When I'm not connected, WhatsApp will
retrieve a message for me and forward it next time I'm online. A
solution would be a tiny home server for each user, or diaspora-like a
couple of shared pods. 

> Encryption and authentication will be tricky. Hand-delivering public
> keys won't scale so you will need a trusted external party. 

The public key could just be sent. Theoretically there might be man in
the middle attack, but just for example: I have a link to my key in my
signature. For a man in the middle attack, an attacker would have to
intercept and modify each request to my blog by replacing the key,
except for tha case when I'm the visitor. This is technically impossible.

Of course this copy and paste thing is a bit too much effort. But
imagine a raspberry pi, connected to the home router, acting as a
private server and serving the public key to any remote client
requesting it. If I suspect foul play, I can visit a friend and ask
him to show me his copy of my public key.

> I can't see
> a better long-term choice but the government.

You mean the government handles the key exchange for us?! Definitely
not my first choice.

Br,
Elvis

-- 
Trolling is a art!

My public-key is available on http://tinyurl.com/ps9r99y

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

#596

"q.kontinuum" <achsis_of_elvis@yahoo.co.uk>:

> On 2014-02-19, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>> Encryption and authentication will be tricky. Hand-delivering public
>> keys won't scale so you will need a trusted external party. 
>
> [...] Theoretically there might be man in the middle attack [...] This
> is technically impossible.

"Impossible" is a big word.

>> I can't see a better long-term choice but the government.
>
> You mean the government handles the key exchange for us?! Definitely
> not my first choice.

Different schemes can be supported simultaneously, of course.

The Finnish Census Bureau has been issuing smart ID cards to citizens
for some years (although they haven't yet become popular). In the
scheme, the Finnish government certifies the peer's ID card is
physically present at the other end of the communication.

The prevalent identification method in Finland is through the banks. You
are asked to log on to your bank account and the bank certifies you have
access to the bank account. The scheme works very well, but is costly to
the service provider. In a P2P IM service, no party will want to pay for
authentication.


Marko

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

#623

On 2014-02-20, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> "q.kontinuum" <achsis_of_elvis@yahoo.co.uk>:
>
>> On 2014-02-19, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>>> Encryption and authentication will be tricky. Hand-delivering public
>>> keys won't scale so you will need a trusted external party. 
>>
>> [...] Theoretically there might be man in the middle attack [...] This
>> is technically impossible.
>
> "Impossible" is a big word.

Yes, yet for practical purposes justified in some cases. Imagine I'm
using a friends laptop to visit my website (e.g. to verify the key is
the same). How should any man in the middle know that it's me and not
my friend? Ok, with built-in webcam etc. the computer could identify
me as current user, although this would be *very* var fetched already.
Now imagine I meet a friend in real-live to verify the key. The CCC
(or other hacker organizations) would proabably do that once in a
while. How should the same display at the same time show the fake-key
to my friend and the real one to me?

The only way would be to argue philosophically, that we might not
actually exist and all we feel is a simulation, but in that case the
whole discussion is futile anyway.

>
>>> I can't see a better long-term choice but the government.
>>
>> You mean the government handles the key exchange for us?! Definitely
>> not my first choice.
>
> Different schemes can be supported simultaneously, of course.
>
> The Finnish Census Bureau has been issuing smart ID cards to citizens
> for some years (although they haven't yet become popular). In the
> scheme, the Finnish government certifies the peer's ID card is
> physically present at the other end of the communication.
>
> The prevalent identification method in Finland is through the banks. You
> are asked to log on to your bank account and the bank certifies you have
> access to the bank account. The scheme works very well, but is costly to
> the service provider. In a P2P IM service, no party will want to pay for
> authentication.

I would want to use a messaging app to communicate with people I
already know. I wouldn't want any third party to authenticate anyone
to me at all. A web of trust would be perfect for this purpose.

Elvis

-- 
Trolling is a art!

My public-key is available on http://tinyurl.com/ps9r99y

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

#598

Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> "q.kontinuum"<achsis_of_elvis@yahoo.co.uk>:
>
>> Are there any decent peer to peer services? Where connections are
>> managed from a central place, but communication happens peer to peer
>> rather than centralized? Or is there a solution providing good enough
>> encryption? Any good concept for encrypted chat for laymen? (I.e. key
>> creation and configuration should be fairly simple, security should be
>> verifiable to a certain extent etc.)
>
> Once IPv6 takes over, you won't need any service in between. Everybody
> just needs to run a daemon (aka "app") on their edge device and form
> whatever groups they need.
>
> Encryption and authentication will be tricky. Hand-delivering public
> keys won't scale so you will need a trusted external party. I can't see
> a better long-term choice but the government.
>
>
> Marko

I was never able to find the app on Android's app store, but I looked a 
couple times because my wife's family uses it and I thought I'd try.  I 
believe it had a security snafu or two about a year ago, which required 
them to take it down for a while.

I'd like to propose Jabber as a protocol, but understand it fails now in 
the age of smart phones etc. that would have a user "appear" on line 
over the course of the day from different machines.  Jabber wasn't made 
for that.  Perhaps it could be extended, but it took a long time for all 
stakeholders and standards bodies to even coalesce around the Jabber 
protocol, so I'm not convinced that could happen quickly.

There's Google Hangouts, but I'm now immensely leary of anything that 
ties me into the Google ecosystem (I'm a hypocrite with an Android in my 
pocket, I know) for the same reasons I was leery of Microsoft a decade 
ago: everything comes as a package, and you don't get Hangouts without 
also getting G+, which immediately overtakes your Youtube account, which 
requires you to confirm an email address via Gmail etc.  It's no better 
than Outlook -> Exchange -> Sharepoint -> Server package, etc.

Meanwhile, back on topic, I don't think there's a suitable protocol in 
the open for us to use.  Some smart dude ought to quick propose one and 
maybe make some money with it.  Seems like an opportunity.

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

#604

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>:

> Meanwhile, back on topic, I don't think there's a suitable protocol in
> the open for us to use. Some smart dude ought to quick propose one and
> maybe make some money with it. Seems like an opportunity.

Let's get back after IPv6 breaks through. Give it 3 more years.

I'm not sure there's money to be made. Maybe running an independent IRC
server on every device is the way to go. The security infrastructure is
going to be the tough part.


Marko

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

#614

On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 08:54:24 +0000, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>
wrote:

>Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> "q.kontinuum"<achsis_of_elvis@yahoo.co.uk>:
>>
>>> Are there any decent peer to peer services? Where connections are
>>> managed from a central place, but communication happens peer to peer
>>> rather than centralized? Or is there a solution providing good enough
>>> encryption? Any good concept for encrypted chat for laymen? (I.e. key
>>> creation and configuration should be fairly simple, security should be
>>> verifiable to a certain extent etc.)
>>
>> Once IPv6 takes over, you won't need any service in between. Everybody
>> just needs to run a daemon (aka "app") on their edge device and form
>> whatever groups they need.
>>
>> Encryption and authentication will be tricky. Hand-delivering public
>> keys won't scale so you will need a trusted external party. I can't see
>> a better long-term choice but the government.
>>
>>
>> Marko
>
>I was never able to find the app on Android's app store, but I looked a 
>couple times because my wife's family uses it and I thought I'd try.  I 
>believe it had a security snafu or two about a year ago, which required 
>them to take it down for a while.
>
>I'd like to propose Jabber as a protocol, but understand it fails now in 
>the age of smart phones etc. that would have a user "appear" on line 
>over the course of the day from different machines.  Jabber wasn't made 
>for that.  Perhaps it could be extended, but it took a long time for all 
>stakeholders and standards bodies to even coalesce around the Jabber 
>protocol, so I'm not convinced that could happen quickly.
>
>There's Google Hangouts, but I'm now immensely leary of anything that 
>ties me into the Google ecosystem (I'm a hypocrite with an Android in my 
>pocket, I know) for the same reasons I was leery of Microsoft a decade 
>ago: everything comes as a package, and you don't get Hangouts without 
>also getting G+, which immediately overtakes your Youtube account, which 
>requires you to confirm an email address via Gmail etc.  It's no better 
>than Outlook -> Exchange -> Sharepoint -> Server package, etc.
>
>Meanwhile, back on topic, I don't think there's a suitable protocol in 
>the open for us to use.  Some smart dude ought to quick propose one and 
>maybe make some money with it.  Seems like an opportunity.

Of course, the opportunity to make money will be when Google,
Microsoft or Facebook buys him out for $billions, which just puts us
back where we started.

Although... other than propogation speed, Usenet is a nice
decentralized protocol that lets you send and receive messages, it
stores them offline until you can reconnect, and you can access it
from multiple machines. A bit of a problem with authentication too, I
guess. Maybe that could be a starting point for somebody cleverer than
me ;-)

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

#622

> A bit of a problem with authentication too
You can sign your messages using Thunderbird + Enigmail. There's no public-key 
directory though, so you have to tell people to go to a website to get your key.




-- 
View this thread at http://squte.com/node/4679#comment-10690

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

#628

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2/19/2014 6:00 PM, tdk wrote:
>> A bit of a problem with authentication too
> You can sign your messages using Thunderbird + Enigmail. There's 
> no public-key directory though, so you have to tell people to go 
> to a website to get your key.
> 

No public-key directory? Why not the public keyservers like pgp.mit.edu?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTBj0IAAoJEI6XQfEIj56B0mQIAKinPG/iQeSkgiz2s5zE57lF
xRmDQ5Bzo7oYvB63b01jgsJ8w3hEU2e/J2YC3EA6ibLTIRXOBYkZPW4HrcTBhzQ2
alYQraJslLZ+boxaB3+oYdKcpPnrKeYr+kx28SeO6vdkcmudRMPBzxoWlBvj7Wjz
M2momIlBMegvl6asnlTrdwqn1UQ9GWVNpNIo0GkQIKS99qcLgG3dLHOZ8uV020SQ
ch0YH8RbvS3XA1Cy2/htwOqHRoz2FjPPlVcEyBaC03VTzxRLoVXxB4cVyej66wvo
f2sSChr3wcEYBlzvzuluPlwCB84yacLQqkVxmNTqMjr/ZDBEGkQjVXFsPeds6ak=
=D0RY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#638

On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:36:10 -0600
Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:

> On 2/19/2014 6:00 PM, tdk wrote:
> >> A bit of a problem with authentication too  
> > You can sign your messages using Thunderbird + Enigmail. There's 
> > no public-key directory though, so you have to tell people to go 
> > to a website to get your key.
> >   
> 
> No public-key directory? Why not the public keyservers like pgp.mit.edu?

That's just it. All the pieces are there, but there's nobody to set them
up together and package it nicely for the mainstream public. Instead,
there are who companies provide technologically inferior solutions with oh
so shiny polish.

-- 
A.

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

#595

On 2/19/14 11:02 PM, q.kontinuum wrote:
>Just saw it on one of my standarf news sites:
>
>http://newsroom.fb.com/News/805/Facebook-to-Acquire-WhatsApp

They are spending $16B to get it.  Huge amount of cash!  An article on the
 Register says even Microsoft purchase of Nokia went for less money.

Facebook has too much money to spend and is spending it poorly.

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

#615

On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 07:17:57 +0000, RS Wood wrote:

> On 2/19/14 11:02 PM, q.kontinuum wrote:
>>Just saw it on one of my standarf news sites:
>>
>>http://newsroom.fb.com/News/805/Facebook-to-Acquire-WhatsApp
> 
> They are spending $16B to get it.  Huge amount of cash!  An article on
> the
>  Register says even Microsoft purchase of Nokia went for less money.
> 
> Facebook has too much money to spend and is spending it poorly.

It's a bubble, the 1990s "New Economy" all over again.

Compare this $16B+$3B=$19B with the $2.3B that Lenovo recently paid for 
IBM's server business.

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

#620

On 2014-02-20, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On 2/19/14 11:02 PM, q.kontinuum wrote:
>>Just saw it on one of my standarf news sites:
>>
>>http://newsroom.fb.com/News/805/Facebook-to-Acquire-WhatsApp
>
> They are spending $16B to get it.  Huge amount of cash!  An article on the
>  Register says even Microsoft purchase of Nokia went for less money.

Wow, there are two low blows in such a short post! Congratulations,
couldn't have it done better myself ;-)

1. Did MS not buy Nokia. They bought the devices business (Smartphone
and Mobilephone). They did not buy http://360.here.com or NSN or the
patents. 
2. About the amount, it's true. They paid around 3 times of what MS
paid for Nokias Devices business. Still its below the beltline to
point it out to a proud Nokian ;-) Just imagine, WhatsApp could have
bought that part of Nokia, and instead of phones they would start
building WhatsApp-Devices with the additional capability of making
phone calls and web browsing ;-)

About the amount, there is an interesting theory I just read. It's
based on the assumption that Sequoia would own a decisive part of
Facebook. Since they finance WhatsApp, they are the biggest winner;
just as they were with Instagramm already. This might be a way to
extract money from Facebook by playing on both sides, in which case
the smaller Facebook investors would be on the losing end.

Problem is, I was not able to verify if Sequoia really owns any
Facebook shares, or if it is a relevant fraction. Currently it is just
a rumour.

But it's kind of hard to imagine what else would justify such a
tremendous price for WhatsApp.


-- 
Trolling is a art!

My public-key is available on http://tinyurl.com/ps9r99y

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

#668

On 2014-02-20, q.kontinuum <achsis_of_elvis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> About the amount, there is an interesting theory I just read.
>
> Problem is, I was not able to verify if Sequoia really owns any
> Facebook shares, or if it is a relevant fraction. Currently it is just
> a rumour.

Apparently I'm not the only one who digged into it, and others also
found no hint that Sequoia owns *any* Facebook shares at all. So, this
theory seems to be moot.

Nevertheless:
> But it's kind of hard to imagine what else would justify such a
> tremendous price for WhatsApp.


-- 
Trolling is a art!

My public-key is available on http://tinyurl.com/ps9r99y

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

#618

On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 00:02:23 +0100, q.kontinuum wrote:

> Just saw it on one of my standarf news sites:
> 
> http://newsroom.fb.com/News/805/Facebook-to-Acquire-WhatsApp
> 
> I don't know yet what to make of it. WhatsApp didn't have a strong
> reputation of mining the data or trading it. I didn't feel 100%
> comfortable using it, but I didn't feel to bad either. This will now
> change from my perspective. Are there any decent peer to peer services?
> Where connections are managed from a central place, but communication
> happens peer to peer rather than centralized? Or is there a solution
> providing good enough encryption? Any good concept for encrypted chat
> for laymen? (I.e. key creation and configuration should be fairly
> simple, security should be verifiable to a certain extent etc.)

First of all I think it is over valued at $16bn ~ $19bn. That being said, 
I don't like the idea of Facebook gaining access to the users of WhatsApp. 
Speaking entirely for myself I'm absolutely sick of the big companies, 
like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, et al buying up the bright stars of 
internet in their attempt to own it all. I liked Skype all by itself. Now 
part of Microsoft I don't have happy thoughts about it. 

What I'd really like to see are more truly open systems out there that 
cannot be owned. That require a community to run and depend on users and 
community as function. 

Maybe we just need to make a new internet entirely. One where every user 
has a node that connects to other user nodes. Course we'd all have to be 
close together for this to work, unless someone happens to own some long 
haul fiber they wish to donate. :-)

Back to the topic. Part of the attraction, for me, to apps like WhatsApp 
is that they are islands of their own. This is the second time Facebook 
bought into an account I own. I don't want to be part of facebook. 



-- 
Marek Novotny
A member of the Linux Foundation
http://www.linuxfoundation.org

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web