Meta have given a update on how they will allow other messaging apps to communicate with whatsapp/messenger users ...
<https://about.fb.com/news/2024/09/an-update-on-how-were-building-safe-and-secure-third-party-chats-for-users-in-europe/>
Meta have given a update on how they will allow other messaging apps to communicate with whatsapp/messenger users ...
Andy Burns wrote:I'm not sure Signal or Telegram want to play, didn't they say they'd
Meta have given a update on how they will allow other messaging apps to
communicate with whatsapp/messenger users ...
I sure hope there will be a choice in Signal so I can block third party messengers.
Given your helpful information above, that means the kids & I will get...
1. Notifications when people try to communicate with me
2. Combined or separate inboxes being my choice
3. Rich-messaging features such as reactions, direct replies,
typing indicators, and read receipts
4. With later inclusion of rich-messaging features such as
the option to create groups and voice & video calling
Is that a good summary of the article's content?
If so, anyone know if that applies to both Android & to iOS?
(it probably does, but Apple has a habit of including useful
things only when and particularly only where they are mandated).
I'm not sure Signal or Telegram want to play, didn't they say they'd
rather GTFO the EU if they were forced to?
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 21:39:08 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
I'm not sure Signal or Telegram want to play, didn't they say they'd
rather GTFO the EU if they were forced to?
I did some searching and Signal indeed stated they won't do it. It seems
the DMA was only meant for Meta (WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger). At
least that's how it seems to me. Signal has a problem with it since Meta >won't let Signal have a look at their encryption while Signal's is open >source.
I've been using Signal, but it seems everyone else I know, except my immediate family, uses WhatsApp.
s|b wrote on Tue, 10 Sep 2024 17:47:18 +0200 :
I've been using Signal, but it seems everyone else I know, except my
immediate family, uses WhatsApp.
I was using both, but finally decided to drop WhatsApp. I sent a message
to several people... nobody switched. I don't care. My most important
contacts (mother, sister, a couple of friends) were already using
Signal. Non Signal users can text me through old school SMS.
I tried Signal, but nobody else did, whereas everyone is on MMS/SMS here.
Since I'm in the USA where unlimited everything is ubiquitous for a single price per month, I use "normal" messaging apps (e.g., PulsSMS) for SMS/MMS.
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 14:35:17 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
I've been using Signal, but it seems everyone else I know, except my
immediate family, uses WhatsApp.
I was using both, but finally decided to drop WhatsApp. I sent a message
to several people... nobody switched. I don't care.
My most important
contacts (mother, sister, a couple of friends) were already using
Signal. Non Signal users can text me through old school SMS.
I've been using Signal, but it seems everyone else I know, except my
immediate family, uses WhatsApp.
I was using both, but finally decided to drop WhatsApp. I sent a message
to several people... nobody switched. I don't care. My most important contacts (mother, sister, a couple of friends) were already using
Signal. Non Signal users can text me through old school SMS.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 21:39:08 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
I'm not sure Signal or Telegram want to play, didn't they say they'd
rather GTFO the EU if they were forced to?
I did some searching and Signal indeed stated they won't do it. It seems
the DMA was only meant for Meta (WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger). At
least that's how it seems to me. Signal has a problem with it since Meta won't let Signal have a look at their encryption while Signal's is open source.
I was using both, but finally decided to drop WhatsApp. I sent a message
to several people... nobody switched. I don't care.
That is why nobody switched.
My most important
contacts (mother, sister, a couple of friends) were already using
Signal. Non Signal users can text me through old school SMS.
Did ever someone do up to now? And who cares?
Whatsapp uses the Signal protocol. How did they make open source into
closed source? "The Signal Protocol is licensed under the GNU Affero
General Public License (AGPLv3). This license requires that the complete source code of the licensed work and any modifications be made available under the same license."
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 18:21:31 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
I was using both, but finally decided to drop WhatsApp. I sent a message >>> to several people... nobody switched. I don't care.
That is why nobody switched.
They didn't switch because they don't know Signal and they don't want 2 messengers.
My most important
contacts (mother, sister, a couple of friends) were already using
Signal. Non Signal users can text me through old school SMS.
Did ever someone do up to now? And who cares?
Yes, they did. Some of my contacts have been using SMS since they can't
reach me on WA anymore.
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 11:15:46 +0100, Richmond wrote:
Whatsapp uses the Signal protocol. How did they make open source into
closed source? "The Signal Protocol is licensed under the GNU Affero
General Public License (AGPLv3). This license requires that the complete
source code of the licensed work and any modifications be made available
under the same license."
I don't know the details, but someone explained it like this:
A Signal user sends a message to a WA user. The encryption is:
aZ*2
When it reaches the servers at WA something gets added:
aZ*2[Vy*3]
This way data could be gathered by Meta. Meta doesn't give access to
Signal to check if something like this doesn't happen.
I don't know if I'm explaining correctly, but if Signal doesn't want to cooperate they must have a damn good reason.
On 11.09.24 18:13, s|b wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 11:15:46 +0100, Richmond wrote:
Whatsapp uses the Signal protocol. How did they make open source
into closed source? "The Signal Protocol is licensed under the GNU
Affero General Public License (AGPLv3). This license requires that
the complete source code of the licensed work and any modifications
be made available under the same license."
I don't know the details, but someone explained it like this:
A Signal user sends a message to a WA user. The encryption is:
aZ*2
When it reaches the servers at WA something gets added:
aZ*2[Vy*3]
This way data could be gathered by Meta. Meta doesn't give access to
Signal to check if something like this doesn't happen.
I don't know if I'm explaining correctly, but if Signal doesn't want
to cooperate they must have a damn good reason.
No: Signal has absolutely no intention to break their encryption which
is a condition for interoperability. Would Signal do that I would drop
it immediately. Signal uses an end-to-end-encryption which WA does not really. Alternative suppliers like Signal, Threema, iMsg or Telegram
would commit immediate suicide if they would follow that route.
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 11:15:46 +0100, Richmond wrote:
Whatsapp uses the Signal protocol. How did they make open source into
closed source? "The Signal Protocol is licensed under the GNU Affero
General Public License (AGPLv3). This license requires that the complete
source code of the licensed work and any modifications be made available
under the same license."
I don't know the details, but someone explained it like this:
A Signal user sends a message to a WA user. The encryption is:
aZ*2
When it reaches the servers at WA something gets added:
aZ*2[Vy*3]
This way data could be gathered by Meta. Meta doesn't give access to
Signal to check if something like this doesn't happen.
I don't know if I'm explaining correctly, but if Signal doesn't want to cooperate they must have a damn good reason.
Jörg Lorenz <[email protected]> writes:
On 11.09.24 18:13, s|b wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 11:15:46 +0100, Richmond wrote:
Whatsapp uses the Signal protocol. How did they make open source
into closed source? "The Signal Protocol is licensed under the GNU
Affero General Public License (AGPLv3). This license requires that
the complete source code of the licensed work and any modifications
be made available under the same license."
I don't know the details, but someone explained it like this:
A Signal user sends a message to a WA user. The encryption is:
aZ*2
When it reaches the servers at WA something gets added:
aZ*2[Vy*3]
This way data could be gathered by Meta. Meta doesn't give access to
Signal to check if something like this doesn't happen.
I don't know if I'm explaining correctly, but if Signal doesn't want
to cooperate they must have a damn good reason.
No: Signal has absolutely no intention to break their encryption which
is a condition for interoperability. Would Signal do that I would drop
it immediately. Signal uses an end-to-end-encryption which WA does not
really. Alternative suppliers like Signal, Threema, iMsg or Telegram
would commit immediate suicide if they would follow that route.
How do you know android isn't stealing your data?
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 18:21:31 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
I was using both, but finally decided to drop WhatsApp. I sent a message >> > to several people... nobody switched. I don't care.
That is why nobody switched.
They didn't switch because they don't know Signal and they don't want 2 messengers.
My most important
contacts (mother, sister, a couple of friends) were already using
Signal. Non Signal users can text me through old school SMS.
Did ever someone do up to now? And who cares?
Yes, they did. Some of my contacts have been using SMS since they can't
reach me on WA anymore.
"s|b" <[email protected]d> writes:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 18:21:31 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
I was using both, but finally decided to drop WhatsApp. I sent a message >>>> to several people... nobody switched. I don't care.
That is why nobody switched.
They didn't switch because they don't know Signal and they don't want 2
messengers.
My most important
contacts (mother, sister, a couple of friends) were already using
Signal. Non Signal users can text me through old school SMS.
Did ever someone do up to now? And who cares?
Yes, they did. Some of my contacts have been using SMS since they can't
reach me on WA anymore.
Given that you are communicating via SMS, would it be any worse to communicate through an interoperability bridge without E2EE?
Given that you are communicating via SMS, would it be any worse to communicate through an interoperability bridge without E2EE?
Aren't you important enough for them? Or they not important enough for
you to use WA?
As a consequence they use 2 messengers.
What a pile of contradictions!
BTW: I dropped WA years ago as well. I told everybody important to me
and gave them the channels to reach me. In total I operate 5 messengers.
It is so easy. No one should ever have an excuse not to be able to reach me.
What data do they collect? The FAQ says they use E2EE.
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 18:49:51 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
BTW: I dropped WA years ago as well. I told everybody important to me
and gave them the channels to reach me. In total I operate 5 messengers.
It is so easy. No one should ever have an excuse not to be able to reach me.
Adding Signal next to WA isn't difficult at all. I send them the URL,
but still they won't install it.
On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 13:11:02 +0100, Richmond wrote:
Given that you are communicating via SMS, would it be any worse to
communicate through an interoperability bridge without E2EE?
Come again? I would have to set that up on my end (how?), but also at
their end, right?
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 18:49:51 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Aren't you important enough for them? Or they not important enough for
you to use WA?
Wat de boer niet kent, dat eet hij niet.
(What the uneducated person doesn't know, he won't eat.)
They're just afraid of the unknown... and lazy. My mother is alsmost 74. She's got an iPhone with WA /and/ Signal.
If Signal decides to interoperate,
On 2024-09-14 17:43, s|b wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 18:49:51 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
BTW: I dropped WA years ago as well. I told everybody important to me
and gave them the channels to reach me. In total I operate 5 messengers. >>> It is so easy. No one should ever have an excuse not to be able to reach me.
Adding Signal next to WA isn't difficult at all. I send them the URL,
but still they won't install it.
I have them all installed (except Threema), but nobody in my circle uses anything except whatsapp. And some SMS from businesses.
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 20:26:56 +0100, Richmond wrote:
What data do they collect? The FAQ says they use E2EE.
Sure they do. <eyes to the ceiling>
On 15.09.24 16:56, Richmond wrote:
If Signal decides to interoperate,
What I really doubt.
They had to break the E2EE. And it has a reason why someone is using
Signal and not WA.
For Signal and other providers like Telegram, Threema and even iMsg it
would mean instant suicide. Why should anyone use them instead of the "original"?
In this case the authorities are undermining competition instead of
promoting it.
You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a
plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You
can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this
morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap.
On 14.09.24 20:50, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-09-14 17:43, s|b wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 18:49:51 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
BTW: I dropped WA years ago as well. I told everybody important to me
and gave them the channels to reach me. In total I operate 5 messengers. >>>> It is so easy. No one should ever have an excuse not to be able to reach me.
Adding Signal next to WA isn't difficult at all. I send them the URL,
but still they won't install it.
I have them all installed (except Threema), but nobody in my circle uses
anything except whatsapp. And some SMS from businesses.
I gave up WA many years ago on my iPhone and I'm not missing anything
and I can easily communicate with everybody having a smartphone.
And it has a reason why someone is using Signal and not WA.
On 2024-09-19 11:31, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 15.09.24 16:56, Richmond wrote:
If Signal decides to interoperate,
What I really doubt.
They had to break the E2EE. And it has a reason why someone is using
Signal and not WA.
For Signal and other providers like Telegram, Threema and even iMsg it
would mean instant suicide. Why should anyone use them instead of the
"original"?
In this case the authorities are undermining competition instead of
promoting it.
Good!
They are also going to mandate Apple to open up their software to other hardware competitors, under fine of 10% world earnings.
I love this government! :-P
Carlos E.R. wrote:
You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a
plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You
can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this
morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap.
Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ...
Carlos E.R. wrote:
You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a
plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You
can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this
morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap.
Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ...
On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a
plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You
can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this
morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap.
Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ...
It isn't anywhere.
On 2024-09-20 14:30, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a
plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You >>>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this
morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap.
Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ...
It isn't anywhere.
LOL! Here it is. Not obligatory, just the de facto standard. Everybody
has it. Even banks assume you have it.
On 20.09.24 20:25, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-09-20 14:30, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a
plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You >>>>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this
morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap.
Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ...
It isn't anywhere.
LOL! Here it is. Not obligatory, just the de facto standard. Everybody
has it. Even banks assume you have it.
That is your perception which has no connection to reality. Even in
Spain. Your claim is ridiculous.
I told you already that banks were fined by the billions globally
because their employees used WA for business. WA is not accepted as best practice because of the lack of traceability and accountability.
Perhaps housewives manage their allowances and adolescents their pocket
money with WhatsApp.
EOD.
On 2024-09-20 14:30, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a
plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You >>>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this
morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap.
Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ...
It isn't anywhere.
LOL! Here it is. Not obligatory, just the de facto standard. Everybody
has it. Even banks assume you have it.
Am 20.09.24 um 20:25 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
On 2024-09-20 14:30, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a
plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You >>>>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this
morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap.
Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ...
It isn't anywhere.
LOL! Here it is. Not obligatory, just the de facto standard. Everybody
has it. Even banks assume you have it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html
Jörg Lorenz <[email protected]> wrote:
Am 20.09.24 um 22:38 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
On 2024-09-20 21:42, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
That is your perception which has no connection to reality. Even in
Spain. Your claim is ridiculous.
LOL!
I told you already that banks were fined by the billions globally
because their employees used WA for business. WA is not accepted as best >>>> practice because of the lack of traceability and accountability.
Perhaps housewives manage their allowances and adolescents their pocket >>>> money with WhatsApp.
LOL! You have no connection to reality. Ignorant.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html
Repeating your lies doesn't make them true. Quite the contrary.
The banks were NOT fined because the employees used WhatsApp. They
were fined because the employees *didn't keep proper archival records*. Clue-by-four: See the "records" bit in *your* URL.
That's the problem with giving references, you run the risk that
people actually *read* them and, by doing so, debunk your bollocks
But, by all means, keep digging! Sooner or later you'll come out at
the other end. Hope the swiss surface isn't too hard.
Am 20.09.24 um 22:38 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
On 2024-09-20 21:42, J�rg Lorenz wrote:
That is your perception which has no connection to reality. Even in
Spain. Your claim is ridiculous.
LOL!
I told you already that banks were fined by the billions globally
because their employees used WA for business. WA is not accepted as best >> practice because of the lack of traceability and accountability.
Perhaps housewives manage their allowances and adolescents their pocket
money with WhatsApp.
LOL! You have no connection to reality. Ignorant.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html
On 2024-09-21 09:39, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Am 20.09.24 um 20:25 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
On 2024-09-20 14:30, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a >>>>>> plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You >>>>>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this
morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap.
Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ...
It isn't anywhere.
LOL! Here it is. Not obligatory, just the de facto standard. Everybody
has it. Even banks assume you have it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html
That's there, not here.
Am 21.09.24 um 13:39 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
On 2024-09-21 09:39, J�rg Lorenz wrote:
Am 20.09.24 um 20:25 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
On 2024-09-20 14:30, J�rg Lorenz wrote:
On 19.09.24 21:47, Andy Burns wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
You live in a different country than me. Here, if I need to call a >>>>>> plumber to fix a broken tap, he asks me to send a photo via wasap. You >>>>>> can not live without having and using wasap. My bank manager this >>>>>> morning sent me her profesional contact info, on wasap.
Thankfully, it's not yet become "semi-obligatory" here ...
It isn't anywhere.
LOL! Here it is. Not obligatory, just the de facto standard. Everybody >>> has it. Even banks assume you have it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html
That's there, not here.
There is here:
https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/edpb-publishes-binding-decision-concerning-whatsapp_en
In Europe the same rules apply.
BTW: I work in this industry. The use of consumer messengers for
business purposes is strictly forbidden everywhere for very serious
reasons.
Messengers and in particular WA make it impossible for the
banks and other financial institutions to have an uninterrupted and
accepted documentation of client communication.
You do not understand much of the regulatory requirements of modern
business at all.
On 2024-09-21 14:24, Frank Slootweg wrote:
J�rg Lorenz <[email protected]> wrote:
Am 20.09.24 um 22:38 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
On 2024-09-20 21:42, J�rg Lorenz wrote:
That is your perception which has no connection to reality. Even in
Spain. Your claim is ridiculous.
LOL!
I told you already that banks were fined by the billions globally
because their employees used WA for business. WA is not accepted as best >>>> practice because of the lack of traceability and accountability.
Perhaps housewives manage their allowances and adolescents their pocket >>>> money with WhatsApp.
LOL! You have no connection to reality. Ignorant.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/business/banks-fines-whatsapp-records.html
Repeating your lies doesn't make them true. Quite the contrary.
The banks were NOT fined because the employees used WhatsApp. They
were fined because the employees *didn't keep proper archival records*. Clue-by-four: See the "records" bit in *your* URL.
Ah, good point. I knew there would be some trick, because my bank, which
is one of the big ones in Europe is using wasap, and they would not risk
an illegality.
That's the problem with giving references, you run the risk that
people actually *read* them and, by doing so, debunk your bollocks
But, by all means, keep digging! Sooner or later you'll come out at
the other end. Hope the swiss surface isn't too hard.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 152:26:52 |
| Calls: | 12,091 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,636 |