alt Hacker News> All of this is really confusing for me.
Yep, I can see that.
The problem with Telegram is that it is not an E2EE messaging platform, period. It is a non-E2EE platform that has an option to encrypt 1:1 messages with a criticised algorithm. Whoever uses Telegram does it for all the nice features that are not E2EE.
> all of a sudden people started claiming it was self evident that "of course Meta can read your WhatsApp messages".
Because some people say stuff like this doesn't make it right. WhatsApp messages are E2EE encrypted, unlike Telegram. There are other things to criticise with WhatsApp, but not that.
> Signal who refused to stop collecting phone numbers until recently even though they never needed it
As you said, you're confused. Signal needed the phone numbers for convenience, so that you could reach your friends. Exactly the same reason as WhatsApp. Could they have done without it? Yes, but maybe Signal would not be as popular. That's a valid tradeoff, and Signal never lied about it. Also having to share your phone number with Signal is still better than any of the other popular platforms. Anything that is "more private" than Signal hasn't managed to get on the map.
Replies
> There are other things to criticise with WhatsApp, but not that.
Nitpick: Facebook can obviously grant themselves the ability to read your WhatsApp messages, by pushing out a new client. What they can't do is covertly read your WhatsApp messages: WhatsApp is well-studied enough that people would notice the malicious client update within a year.
Google or Apple can also grant themselves the ability to read your WhatsApp messages. Someone grabbing your phone while it's unlocked has the same ability.
> Because some people say stuff like this doesn't make it right. WhatsApp messages are E2EE encrypted, unlike Telegram. There are other things to criticise with WhatsApp, but not that.
Is this verifiable fact or Meta's claim? As far as I know neither the server nor the client are open source.