Bypassing means it is not an end to end encryption. It is end to MITM; and MITM to end encryption. Where the man-in-the-middle is alleged to be Meta in this case.
Comment on Lawsuit Alleges That WhatsApp Has No End-to-End Encryption
i078@europe.pub 2 days ago
There is a distinct difference between not having end to end encryption, and bypassing it.
coolmojo@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Maestro@fedia.io 2 days ago
MitM: Meta-in-the-Middle
RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 2 days ago
JFC can nobody on Lemmy read?
The bypass is happening on your device, there is no MITM.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 2 days ago
How?
orclev@lemmy.world 2 days ago
If you can bypass it in the middle it is by definition not end to end encryption. The entire point of end to end encryption is that only the endpoints are able to decrypt the messages and everyone in between only has access to the encrypted messages. If that’s not the case that’s just normal encryption not end to end.
floofloof@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
I think we’re dealing with weasel lawyer words here. Meta can boast that messages E2E encrypted between you and the recipient, but that implies nothing about key storage or security, or about other channels through which message data could be sent directly from your app before it is encrypted.
RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Your device is an endpoint, it’s leaking the information to Meta, that isn’t a MITM.
Unless you redefine the end in e2e to mean your eyes, it’s still e2e encrypted.