[eitland]

WhatsApp has a documented history of all kinds of shadyness from uploading unencrypted (yes, unencrypted) backups to Google under an agreement that let Google rummage through them(!) to their "send the data in a sidechannel directly to Facebook for analysis while also sending it end-to-end-encrypted to the recipient".

I really can't understand why you bright folks here on HN falls for WhatsApps marketing.

E2E means absolutely nothing as long as the messages are siphoned away in broad daylight.

That said: avoid Telegram all you want. But if you mean no one should ever touch it, I hope you are also against physical mail which is way less secure and also email which is way less secure than Telegram.

[heinrich5991]

> WhatsApp has a documented history of all kinds of shadyness from uploading unencrypted (yes, unencrypted) backups to Google under an agreement that let Google rummage through them(!) to their "send the data in a sidechannel directly to Facebook for analysis while also sending it end-to-end-encrypted to the recipient".

I don't have that backup enabled. Does that mean that WhatsApp is secure for me with everyone who also has that disabled?

I don't see how Telegram is better in that respect; the server sees all messages directly. It doesn't even need a documented backdoor like you described.

> under an agreement that let Google rummage through them(!) to their "send the data in a sidechannel directly to Facebook for analysis while also sending it end-to-end-encrypted to the recipient".

*EDIT*: Can you give a link to that agreement? It'd interest me. :)

> But if you mean no one should ever touch it

That's not what I said.

[eitland]

> I don't have that backup enabled. Does that mean that WhatsApp is secure for me with everyone who also has that disabled?

As long as no one of them enables it, probably.

I don't know if this agreement is in place any longer, but you should be able to find references to it using a search engine.

[heinrich5991]

> I don't know if this agreement is in place any longer, but you should be able to find references to it using a search engine.

I've not found it quickly. I found this article which doesn't mention it: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/10/where-whatsapp-went-wr.... Since you made the claim, I'd usually ask you to substantiate it.

[eitland]

Hi again. Yes, I agree you should ask me, it wasn't as easy to find as I first thought, but here[1] is a thread on HN that discusses it and a bit down the thread you find a link to the Verge [2] which in turn links to the case papers [3].

I admit the links I found now are less clear than I though and I don't have more time now, but there is clearly reason to be suspicious when 1.) Facebook stops encrypting data before upload 2.) Google accept to keep the data without counting it against the users quota 3.) sources claim there was a deal. None of these three carries too much weight on their own but together they paint a picture that something is going on.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28485312

[2]: https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/17/22180258/google-whatsapp...

[3]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20428869-the_state_o...

[heinrich5991]

Thanks for tracking down the links.

[eitland]

You seem like a sincere person so be sure to note that what I found now was less damning than what I thought I would find which suggests either it hasn't turned out so bad or they have covered it well up.