[tmpz22]

Does your family's threat model actually include targeted surveillance by US intelligence agencies? There are many reasons to switch off whatsapp, but I don't believe it should be considered insecure unless you are a journalist, activist, or citizen of a country with severe oppressive regimes: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, etc.

If your threat model DOES include US intelligence agencies, you shouldn't use almost any mainstream browser, most protocols (including https://), social media (including HN), etc...

[fsflover]

> but I don't believe it should be considered insecure unless you are a journalist, activist, or citizen of a country with severe oppressive regimes: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, etc.

If only those people will try to have privacy, it will be much easier to target them. Everyone should have privacy to protect them. It’s sort of like freedom of speech is necessary not just for journalists, but for everyone, even if you have nothing to say.

[thefz]

This is just a more convoluted "nothing to hide" argument.

[fsflover]

> If your threat model DOES include US intelligence agencies, you shouldn't use almost any mainstream browser, most protocols (including https://), social media (including HN), etc...

No, you can simply use Qubes OS and use whatever software you want in disposable VMs and perhaps have several identities. It works for me (or so I hope).

[grawprog]

>surveillance by US intelligence agencies? There are many reasons to switch off whatsapp, but I don't believe it should be considered insecure

Well, I consider getting targetted facebook ads based on the content of my whatsapp messages to be insecure.

Being secure also means secure against the company that created/provides the software also.

[bromonkey]

How secure something is doesn't change based on the threat model.

[ketanmaheshwari]

Add India to that list of regimes.

[thunkshift1]

I don’t think so.

[methusala8]

Comparing India to Saudi Arabia and Iran? Lol.