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

Technology

79476 readers
4242 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
[–] lavander@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

Call me old fashioned but I really think that for real E2EE the vendor of the encryption and the vendor of the infrastructure should be two different entities.

For example PGP/GPG on … great! Proton? Not great

Jabber/XMMP with e2ee encryption great! WhatsApp/Telegram/signal… less so (sure I take signal over the other two every day… but it’s enough to compromise a single entity for accessing the data)

[–] phtheven@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Okay Oldschool, but doesn't open source encryption audited by a third party solve this problem? Signal protocol for example? Also proton, I'm guessing, but I'm too lazy to check

[–] BoJackHorseman@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 53 minutes ago) (2 children)

Cynical me would say they don't have to use the code they put up on GitHub in production.

[–] phtheven@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

By this logic, can we trust any open source software, even if they claim to use some third party encryption? They could say they're using a super secure encryption, even show it implemented in their open source code base, then just put the other, secret evil backdoor code base in production? Is there a way for any open source project to prove that the code in their open source repo is the code in production?

[–] BoJackHorseman@lemmy.world 1 points 52 minutes ago

If you can self host it, yes. Like matrix

[–] escapeVelocity@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago

Not much people use clients anymore.