There is absolutely nothing wrong with the article, claiming that it is FUD will not change the fact that WhatsApp can re-send messages encrypted with different keys at will (which makes it ABSOLUTELY USELESS for people who actually care about their privacy). The argument against the article seems to be around "we can trust whatsapp not to abuse their ability", which blows my mind. You should not have to trust anyone with cryptography.
> WhatsApp does not give governments a “backdoor” into its systems and would fight any government request to create a backdoor
The problem is that I have to take their word for that, while they have the ability to activate the backdoor at will.
I linked to HN for a reason, so that people could see what other people think concerning the article. Here is the HN version of that opinion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13394900
The misleading is that people are told that proprietary and centralised messaging services such as whatsapp can guarantee security - the truth is that they probably can't.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Zeynep Tufekci knows more people who need crypto to survive than the average HN user, and understands their trust model better.
> WhatsApp does not give governments a “backdoor” into its systems and would fight any government request to create a backdoor
The problem is that I have to take their word for that, while they have the ability to activate the backdoor at will.
I linked to HN for a reason, so that people could see what other people think concerning the article. Here is the HN version of that opinion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13394900
The misleading is that people are told that proprietary and centralised messaging services such as whatsapp can guarantee security - the truth is that they probably can't.