[m3kw9]

No need for transparency here. Just know that no one has broken the encryption is all you need. Also you likely will not know if beeper sends a copy of your messages to their servers to sell, but who would you trust more won’t sell your info, beeper or Apple?

[yurishimo]

Beeper was acquired by Automattic about a month ago.

[massel]

That was texts.com, not Beeper

[shafyy]

Speaking of, how is Texts able to send iMessage messages (at least on their website, they have the Apple Messages app icon)?

[ruune]

They go through Apple. iMessage only works on MacOS, so they probably just hook into the regular stuff MacOS provides

https://texts.com/faq

[shafyy]

I see. And that's fine for Apple? It's still not an official API right?

[oehpr]

I'm trying to figure out if this post is sarcasm.

The first half definitely made me think sarcasm, then the second half... I mean I know some people actually believe this... Then I noticed you said "encryption" instead of "protocol". Breaking an encryption standard is obviously very hard, breaking a protocol is obviously not nearly so hard.

On the other hand, taking this stance would be insane given the post we're talking about. A company that actively circumvented apples security measures. So you must be being sarcastic. You just have to be.

Remember, on the internet it's kinda hard to tell. Make sure to throw in a /s unless you really REALLY sell it.

[m3kw9]

I wasn’t being sarcastic, I mean you do know there exist closed source for a reason whatever that is. For Apple to open their protocol would mean your messages sent to 3rd party clients, which means they could sell your messages for ad targeting or worse.

[danShumway]

When Apple sends messages via SMS, they are sending your messages to 3rd party clients who could sell your messages for ad targeting or worse. Apple already does this. They already send your messages to random clients who could be spying on you.

It's just that in addition to sending your messages to 3rd party clients that could be stealing the data, Apple goes the extra step to make it even more insecure and also sends your messages completely unencrypted, so that everybody along the path from your device to the 3rd-party client can join in and also read your messages and can also use them for ad targeting or worse.

I'll make the argument that this is strictly worse for security than tolerating an encrypted 3rd-party client (or better, releasing their own 1st-party client rather than relying on SMS).

[paulmd]

isn’t googles RCS encryption a proprietary non-standard that other companies have requested to interop against and been ignored?

yeah can’t imagine why apple doesn’t use it

[danShumway]

Google's RCS standard is garbage.

But Apple doesn't have to use it. They could release a messaging app for Android that used their own encryption, and they could encourage Android users to switch. But they don't do that, because distinguishing between Android and iOS users is ultimately more important to Apple than securing the conversations that Apple users have.

If RCS is garbage (and it is) then it is extremely weird that Apple has committed to supporting RCS for cross-platform messages instead of encouraging adoption of what would be a superior form of encryption for those conversations.

What you have to ask is, if you are an Apple user, why isn't Apple trying to encrypt every message that you send? Why are they asking you to use a garbage protocol when you send messages to Android users?

> yeah can’t imagine why apple doesn’t use it

Really, this statement should be reversed, it's difficult to imagine why Apple is planning to use RCS. Why is Apple more willing to implement a garbage protocol than they are willing to release a messaging app for Android?

[paulmd]

apple