Comment on Lawsuit Alleges That WhatsApp Has No End-to-End Encryption
PierceTheBubble@lemmy.ml 8 hours ago
E2EE isn’t really relevant, when the “ends” have the functionality, to share data with Meta directly: as “reports”, “customer support”, “assistance” (Meta AI); where a UI element is the separation.
partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 5 hours ago
Yeah. E2EE isn’t a single open standard. It’s a general security concept / practice. There’s no way to argue that they don’t really have E2EE if in fact they do, but they keep a copy of the encryption key for themselves. Also, the workers client app can simply have the “decrypt step” done transparently. Or, a decrypted copy of the messages could be stored in a cache that the client app uses… who knows? E2EE being present or not isn’t really the main story here.
PierceTheBubble@lemmy.ml 2 hours ago
Yeah, I guess if you want users to keep sharing “confessions, [] difficult debases, or silly inside jokes” through a platform you’ve acquired, E2EE might give the WhatsApp user the false sense of privacy required.
Candice_the_elephant@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
I don’t think it can be called End to End Encryption if it is actually End to End and The guy in the Middle.
End to End implies only the Sender and Recipient have keys to decrypt the message.
partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 5 hours ago
It’s not End to End and The guy in the Middle. The message is encrypted from one end to the other. The detail about who has a copy of the key doesn’t spoil that fact, and I guarantee you Meta doesn’t care about using E2EE as a marketing term even if it misrepresents their actual product by matter of status quo. What matters is what they can theoretically argue in a court room.