Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #143306 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-09-06 21:22 +0100 |
| Last post | 2024-09-21 14:28 +0100 |
| Articles | 11 on this page of 51 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
whatsapp interoperability Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2024-09-06 21:22 +0100
Re: whatsapp interoperability Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-09-06 20:59 +0000
Re: whatsapp interoperability Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2024-09-08 17:02 +0100
Re: whatsapp interoperability "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-09-07 22:33 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2024-09-07 21:39 +0100
Re: whatsapp interoperability "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-09-09 20:37 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2024-09-10 14:35 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-09-10 17:47 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-09-10 15:58 +0000
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-10 18:36 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-10 18:21 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-09-11 18:07 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-11 18:49 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-09-14 17:43 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-09-14 20:50 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-19 11:36 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-09-19 21:32 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2024-09-19 20:47 +0100
Re: whatsapp interoperability "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-09-20 13:07 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-20 14:30 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-09-20 20:25 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-20 21:42 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-09-20 22:38 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-21 09:39 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-09-21 12:24 +0000
Re: whatsapp interoperability "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-09-21 15:02 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 13:27 +0000
Re: whatsapp interoperability Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-09-21 18:03 +0000
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-21 09:39 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-09-21 13:39 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-21 15:23 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-09-21 18:04 +0000
Re: whatsapp interoperability Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 22:53 +0000
Re: whatsapp interoperability Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 13:21 +0000
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-19 10:44 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2024-09-12 13:11 +0100
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-12 16:24 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-09-14 17:44 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2024-09-15 15:56 +0100
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-19 11:31 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-09-19 21:35 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-19 23:05 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2024-09-11 11:15 +0100
Re: whatsapp interoperability "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-09-11 18:13 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-11 18:55 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2024-09-11 20:41 +0100
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-12 06:43 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2024-09-11 20:26 +0100
Re: whatsapp interoperability "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-09-14 17:48 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-09-19 11:38 +0200
Re: whatsapp interoperability Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2024-09-21 14:28 +0100
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-19 21:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11burkxs9c.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #143401 |
On 2024-09-19 11:31, Jörg Lorenz wrote: > On 15.09.24 16:56, Richmond wrote: >> If Signal decides to interoperate, > > What I really doubt. > They had to break the E2EE. And it has a reason why someone is using > Signal and not WA. > > For Signal and other providers like Telegram, Threema and even iMsg it > would mean instant suicide. Why should anyone use them instead of the > "original"? > > In this case the authorities are undermining competition instead of > promoting it. Good! They are also going to mandate Apple to open up their software to other hardware competitors, under fine of 10% world earnings. I love this government! :-P -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-19 23:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vci3lt$fblc$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #143414 |
Am 19.09.24 um 21:35 schrieb Carlos E.R.: > On 2024-09-19 11:31, Jörg Lorenz wrote: >> On 15.09.24 16:56, Richmond wrote: >>> If Signal decides to interoperate, >> >> What I really doubt. >> They had to break the E2EE. And it has a reason why someone is using >> Signal and not WA. >> >> For Signal and other providers like Telegram, Threema and even iMsg it >> would mean instant suicide. Why should anyone use them instead of the >> "original"? >> >> In this case the authorities are undermining competition instead of >> promoting it. > > Good! > > They are also going to mandate Apple to open up their software to other > hardware competitors, under fine of 10% world earnings. How trollish you are all the time! Can be seen how brainless you defend this proprietary non standardised private crap called WhatsApp. *LOL* > I love this government! :-P It is yours not mine. -- "Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-11 11:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <86ttemlcml.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #143328 |
"s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> writes: > On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 21:39:08 +0100, Andy Burns wrote: > >> I'm not sure Signal or Telegram want to play, didn't they say they'd >> rather GTFO the EU if they were forced to? > > I did some searching and Signal indeed stated they won't do it. It seems > the DMA was only meant for Meta (WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger). At > least that's how it seems to me. Signal has a problem with it since Meta > won't let Signal have a look at their encryption while Signal's is open > source. > I think this is a shame. I am on signal and not on whatsapp. But I know the vast majority won't shift just because of a small minority. And that is their choice. If they interoperate then there won't be so much pressure on people to join or stay on whatsapp. As whatsapp users already have my telephone number in their contacts, and whatsapp has access to that, it wouldn't matter much. Or they could use an arbitrary identifier. Whatsapp uses the Signal protocol. How did they make open source into closed source? "The Signal Protocol is licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPLv3). This license requires that the complete source code of the licensed work and any modifications be made available under the same license."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-11 18:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lkdtt9Fp3gkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #143347 |
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 11:15:46 +0100, Richmond wrote: > Whatsapp uses the Signal protocol. How did they make open source into > closed source? "The Signal Protocol is licensed under the GNU Affero > General Public License (AGPLv3). This license requires that the complete > source code of the licensed work and any modifications be made available > under the same license." I don't know the details, but someone explained it like this: A Signal user sends a message to a WA user. The encryption is: aZ*2 When it reaches the servers at WA something gets added: aZ*2[Vy*3] This way data could be gathered by Meta. Meta doesn't give access to Signal to check if something like this doesn't happen. I don't know if I'm explaining correctly, but if Signal doesn't want to cooperate they must have a damn good reason. -- s|b
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-11 18:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vbsi1l$42eg$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #143349 |
On 11.09.24 18:13, s|b wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 11:15:46 +0100, Richmond wrote: > >> Whatsapp uses the Signal protocol. How did they make open source into >> closed source? "The Signal Protocol is licensed under the GNU Affero >> General Public License (AGPLv3). This license requires that the complete >> source code of the licensed work and any modifications be made available >> under the same license." > > I don't know the details, but someone explained it like this: > > A Signal user sends a message to a WA user. The encryption is: > > aZ*2 > > When it reaches the servers at WA something gets added: > > aZ*2[Vy*3] > > This way data could be gathered by Meta. Meta doesn't give access to > Signal to check if something like this doesn't happen. > > I don't know if I'm explaining correctly, but if Signal doesn't want to > cooperate they must have a damn good reason. No: Signal has absolutely no intention to break their encryption which is a condition for interoperability. Would Signal do that I would drop it immediately. Signal uses an end-to-end-encryption which WA does not really. Alternative suppliers like Signal, Threema, iMsg or Telegram would commit immediate suicide if they would follow that route. -- "De gustibus non est disputandum."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-11 20:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <86v7z2kmfq.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #143351 |
Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> writes: > On 11.09.24 18:13, s|b wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 11:15:46 +0100, Richmond wrote: >> >>> Whatsapp uses the Signal protocol. How did they make open source >>> into closed source? "The Signal Protocol is licensed under the GNU >>> Affero General Public License (AGPLv3). This license requires that >>> the complete source code of the licensed work and any modifications >>> be made available under the same license." >> >> I don't know the details, but someone explained it like this: >> >> A Signal user sends a message to a WA user. The encryption is: >> >> aZ*2 >> >> When it reaches the servers at WA something gets added: >> >> aZ*2[Vy*3] >> >> This way data could be gathered by Meta. Meta doesn't give access to >> Signal to check if something like this doesn't happen. >> >> I don't know if I'm explaining correctly, but if Signal doesn't want >> to cooperate they must have a damn good reason. > > No: Signal has absolutely no intention to break their encryption which > is a condition for interoperability. Would Signal do that I would drop > it immediately. Signal uses an end-to-end-encryption which WA does not > really. Alternative suppliers like Signal, Threema, iMsg or Telegram > would commit immediate suicide if they would follow that route. How do you know android isn't stealing your data?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-12 06:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vbtri2$4p2m$4@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #143353 |
On 11.09.24 21:41, Richmond wrote: > Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> writes: > >> On 11.09.24 18:13, s|b wrote: >>> On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 11:15:46 +0100, Richmond wrote: >>> >>>> Whatsapp uses the Signal protocol. How did they make open source >>>> into closed source? "The Signal Protocol is licensed under the GNU >>>> Affero General Public License (AGPLv3). This license requires that >>>> the complete source code of the licensed work and any modifications >>>> be made available under the same license." >>> >>> I don't know the details, but someone explained it like this: >>> >>> A Signal user sends a message to a WA user. The encryption is: >>> >>> aZ*2 >>> >>> When it reaches the servers at WA something gets added: >>> >>> aZ*2[Vy*3] >>> >>> This way data could be gathered by Meta. Meta doesn't give access to >>> Signal to check if something like this doesn't happen. >>> >>> I don't know if I'm explaining correctly, but if Signal doesn't want >>> to cooperate they must have a damn good reason. >> >> No: Signal has absolutely no intention to break their encryption which >> is a condition for interoperability. Would Signal do that I would drop >> it immediately. Signal uses an end-to-end-encryption which WA does not >> really. Alternative suppliers like Signal, Threema, iMsg or Telegram >> would commit immediate suicide if they would follow that route. > > How do you know android isn't stealing your data? OT. -- "De gustibus non est disputandum."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-11 20:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <86zfoekn3z.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #143349 |
"s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> writes: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 11:15:46 +0100, Richmond wrote: > >> Whatsapp uses the Signal protocol. How did they make open source into >> closed source? "The Signal Protocol is licensed under the GNU Affero >> General Public License (AGPLv3). This license requires that the complete >> source code of the licensed work and any modifications be made available >> under the same license." > > I don't know the details, but someone explained it like this: > > A Signal user sends a message to a WA user. The encryption is: > > aZ*2 > > When it reaches the servers at WA something gets added: > > aZ*2[Vy*3] > > This way data could be gathered by Meta. Meta doesn't give access to > Signal to check if something like this doesn't happen. > > I don't know if I'm explaining correctly, but if Signal doesn't want to > cooperate they must have a damn good reason. What data do they collect? The FAQ says they use E2EE. https://faq.whatsapp.com/820124435853543 "Privacy and security is in our DNA, which is why we built end-to-end encryption into our app. When end-to-end encrypted, your messages, photos, videos, voice messages, documents, status updates, and calls are secured from falling into the wrong hands." Signal used to be able to send SMS messages. I think as long as you know that a message is not going to be E2EE and you can choose to go ahead it is OK. In order to display a message it has to be decrypted, and that's true for all apps, so at that point an app could collect data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-14 17:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lklpj2FgepU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #143352 |
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 20:26:56 +0100, Richmond wrote: > What data do they collect? The FAQ says they use E2EE. Sure they do. <eyes to the ceiling> -- s|b
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-19 11:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vcgrfc$c7vd$3@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #143371 |
On 14.09.24 17:48, s|b wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 20:26:56 +0100, Richmond wrote: > >> What data do they collect? The FAQ says they use E2EE. > > Sure they do. <eyes to the ceiling> They do. Nobody said you have to use them if you do not trust them. Besides Threema and Apple it is the only service I trust. -- "De gustibus non est disputandum."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-21 14:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <86v7ypcezz.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #143306 |
If Signal doesn't want to interoperate, I bet someone else will. If Delta Chat decided to do it for example, then there would be an interface between Whatsapp and email. And there is no overhead of having to set up a chat server. And if Delta Chat doesn't want to do it, as it is open source, someone could fork it.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web