Lawsuit Alleges That WhatsApp Has No End-to-End Encryption - Slashdot
it.slashdot.org
Longtime Slashdot reader schwit1 shares a report from PCMag: A lawsuit claims that WhatsApp's end-to-end encryption is a sham, and is demanding damages, but the app's parent company, Meta, calls the claims "false and absurd." The lawsuit was filed in a San Francisco US district court on Friday and c...

As evidence, the lawsuit cites unnamed “courageous whistleblowers” who allege that WhatsApp and Meta employees can request to view a user’s messages through a simple process, thus bypassing the app’s end-to-end encryption. “A worker need only send a ‘task’ (i.e., request via Meta’s internal system) to a Meta engineer with an explanation that they need access to WhatsApp messages for their job,” the lawsuit claims. “The Meta engineering team will then grant access – often without any scrutiny at all – and the worker’s workstation will then have a new window or widget available that can pull up any WhatsApp user’s messages based on the user’s User ID number, which is unique to a user but identical across all Meta products.”

“Once the Meta worker has this access, they can read users’ messages by opening the widget; no separate decryption step is required,” the 51-page complaint adds. “The WhatsApp messages appear in widgets commingled with widgets containing messages from unencrypted sources. Messages appear almost as soon as they are communicated – essentially, in real-time. Moreover, access is unlimited in temporal scope, with Meta workers able to access messages from the time users first activated their accounts, including those messages users believe they have deleted.” The lawsuit does not provide any technical details to back up the rather sensational claims.

  • Kevnyon@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    11 hours ago

    Repairability in what way? Outside of changing the tires, a modern car is so complex with all the electronic systems in it that you can’t really repair it yourself and you can’t even reset the error codes because you don’t have that special tablet to even hook into it.

    For safety ratings, do you even know what they test and how without looking it up? I’d venture a guess that no, but I’ve been surprised before.

    People maybe buy a Toyota because they once read that they just work or people may buy a Mercedes one day because their Dad used to always drive one, but they probably didn’t sift through the damn safety and repairability ratings for it, they probably just bought it after a test drive. Its the same thing with anything really, how many times have you ever seen anyone question an app or a device that they are using when it just works and they don’t even have to think about it? Its either 0 or close to it.

    • gustofwind@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      10 hours ago

      You can simply go look up how repairable various makes and models are considered by reputable sources it’s very simple research that a mere google will tell anyone. You’re actually making it out to be much more complicated than it is. They tell you exactly what the safety ratings are for and how they’re tested you just have to spend more than 0 minutes reading the first few google results.

      People can voice ask Google simple questions they’re just not wanting to care about any of this and then are shocked when anything happens.

      You admit it yourself they’re just lazy consumers lol

      • YeahToast@aussie.zoneEnglish
        2·
        6 hours ago

        So here you’re referencing using Google that all privacy conscious consumers would be losing their mind at… so I guess this proves my point that it shouldn’t be solely up to the individual to protect themselves.