this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2026
898 points (99.7% liked)

Technology

79355 readers
4719 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 9 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

It sounds like you're contradicting yourself now. You're right, signal is more secure because its source code is open-source and auditable. So what's the issue? It seems you've been arguing otherwise, and you're just now coming around to it without admitting that you were wrong in the first place.

The client-side app is also open-source and auditable, and you can monitor outgoing traffic on your devise to see whether the signal app is sending data that it shouldn't. It sounds like people have verified that it doesn't do that, but if you don't want to take their word for it then why don't you see for yourself?

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world -4 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

I didn't realize Signal now has reproducible builds (in my defense it didn't when it launched)

and you can monitor outgoing traffic on your devise to see whether the signal app is sending data that it shouldn’t.

This is mostly useless as the traffic signal is sending is encrypted, so you really have to just trust the code.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

If it's sending 0.0kb of background data, then the client is not communicating clandestinely with the server.

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

Sure but it by necessity sends some encrypted data to the server, Wireshark isn't going to tell you if that's just your message or your message and additional information.