> By claiming that their service is secure, WhatsApp may be involved in the single largest case of consumer fraud in human history.
I admire their bravery for saying that publicly. They are absolutely correct. WhatsApp is being very insincere about their security. Anyone who wants to find out which parts are fishy, look at the parts of their product that aren't mentioned in their security whitepaper. There is a reason they are silent about them.
But, isn't Signal by WhisperSystems whose tech has been implemented by WhatsApp and has also been audited by WhisperSystems. If we are to believe that WhatsApp is compromised, how can we believe that Signal isn't?
signal is open source, so we can audit their code and see that they are doing what they claim to be. Cant do that with WhatsApp.....I am not sure if the server code for Signal is open source though
Injecting non-sequiturs into threads wastes everyone's time, which is what you did. Incidentally: the clarification downthread, while valid, is not the reason your comment is a non-sequitur.
Here's an open letter co-signed by over 70 cryptography experts refuting Durov's claim that WhatsApp is compromised by the behavior he cites. Are all of them wrong?
16 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 37.8 ms ] threadI admire their bravery for saying that publicly. They are absolutely correct. WhatsApp is being very insincere about their security. Anyone who wants to find out which parts are fishy, look at the parts of their product that aren't mentioned in their security whitepaper. There is a reason they are silent about them.
Also what's happening to this post? It was flagged, then deleted just a little while ago.
http://technosociology.org/?page_id=1687
Meanwhile, if I was promoting Telegram, Iran would not be a country I would put in any headlines:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-cyber-telegram-exclus...