• cheese_greater@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean if its not encrypted, that could only ever be double-speak. If they say its e2ee, I’m sure they’re still hoovering metadata but thats a strong claim that requires rigorous implementation thats going to be tested equally rigorously. Still think people should delete the app tho

      • JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Rigorous? Not really. The decryption takes place client side in-app, and they simply process it before it hits the display. Just because it’s encrypted in transit doesn’t mean fb doesn’t have ita greasy paws all over it.

        • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The whole point (arguably) is to avoid another situation like when the girl got nailed for an abortion and the mother got charged with facillitating or something because Facebooks chat records between them were accessible to Facebook -> Government upon request/warrant/etc.

          I get Facebook sucks but lets try to think clearly about this. Otherwise I wouldn’t be questioning your points but this is a palpable issue that embarassed them and laid bare how dangerous and rickety the whole setup was

          • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            They claim E2EE. No third party breaks it. Law enforcement is appeased.

            But their closed-source app could still be analyzing the messages before encrypting. We wouldn’t know, because it’s closed source.

            They could still argue it’s E2EE, as it was encrypted on one end and decrypted on the other.

            Facefuck and Zuckerdick get no benefit of the doubt - not only have they not earned it, they’ve demonstrated they are untrustworthy.

            • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              But if they have access to the content in that way, they will be retaining it or manipulating it in some retainable way, the fruits of which are automatically up for grabs via legal request/warrant.

              The moment it becomes plaintext for them or they have any access to non-ciphertext, its fair game for the governement. The whole point of this (or at least part of it) is to avoid a repeat of the mother/daughter abortion" conspiracy" that has already caused them a lot of problems and even less trust than previously. And it was super predictable.