It is a very perverse method to steal user data, fooling regulators and operating system designers. On Android phones only,Isn't this a dupe of Richmond's thread entitled
On 2025-06-13 21:34, Andy Burns wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
It is a very perverse method to steal user data, fooling regulatorsIsn't this a dupe of Richmond's thread entitled
and operating system designers. On Android phones only,
"Delete this spyware: Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp"
I don't know.
[...]
Yes, it is the same issue. I did not read the link at the time, and
there was no summary.
Carlos E.R. wrote:
It is a very perverse method to steal user data, fooling regulatorsIsn't this a dupe of Richmond's thread entitled
and operating system designers. On Android phones only,
"Delete this spyware: Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp"
It is a very perverse method to steal user data, fooling regulators and operating system designers. On Android phones only, if the facebook or instagram app are installed and a session has been opened at some point
in time. Not clear about WhatsApp/Messenger
<https://www.zeropartydata.es/p/localhost-tracking-explained-it-could>
Zero Party Data (EN version)
*“Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion.*
You just can't finish off Zuckerberg.
Jorge García Herrero
jun 10, 2025
What happened?
Meta devised an ingenious system (“localhost tracking”) that bypassed Android’s sandbox protections to identify you while browsing on your mobile phone — even if you used a VPN, the browser’s incognito
mode, and refused or deleted cookies in every session.
Next, we preview what may (and should) become the combined
sanctioning smackdown of the century, and then we explain — in simple
terms (because it’s complicated) — what Meta was doing.
*It smells like record fine spirit*
Meta faces simultaneous liability under the following regulations, listed from least to most severe: GDPR, DSA, and DMA (I’m not even including the ePrivacy Directive because it’s laughable).
GDPR, DMA, and DSA protect different legal interests, so the
penalties under each can be imposed cumulatively.
The combined theoretical maximum risk amounts to approximately €32 billion** (4% + 6% + 10% of Meta’s global annual revenue, which
surpassed €164 billion in 2024).
Maximum fines have never before been applied simultaneously, but
some might say these scoundrels have earned it.
If you want to go straight to the breakdown of infractions and penalties, click here.
... (continues on the link)
"Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d> wrote:
Be aware that disabling the WebRTC API can break some web sites.
Probably best on mobile platforms to use a task killer where Facebook, Instagram, and other socially needy apps (e.g., WhatsApp) get unloaded instead of left running in the background when you "exit" the app.
On 2025-06-14 08:03, VanguardLH wrote:
"Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d> wrote:
...
Be aware that disabling the WebRTC API can break some web sites.
Probably best on mobile platforms to use a task killer where Facebook,
Instagram, and other socially needy apps (e.g., WhatsApp) get unloaded
instead of left running in the background when you "exit" the app.
It is not practical to actually stop WhatsApp, because then you do not
get new messages.
On 2025-06-14 08:03, VanguardLH wrote:
"Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d> wrote:
...
Be aware that disabling the WebRTC API can break some web sites.
Probably best on mobile platforms to use a task killer where Facebook,
Instagram, and other socially needy apps (e.g., WhatsApp) get unloaded
instead of left running in the background when you "exit" the app.
It is not practical to actually stop WhatsApp, because then you do not
get new messages.
So, if
you're not addicted to the app
On 14.06.25 16:08, VanguardLH wrote:What do the French railways have to do with it :-P
So, if you're not addicted to the app
Carlos like many others is. *SCNR*
On 14/06/2025 15:28, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Carlos like many others is. *SCNR*
What do the French railways have to do with it :-P
"Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 2025-06-14 08:03, VanguardLH wrote:
"Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d> wrote:
...
Be aware that disabling the WebRTC API can break some web sites.
Probably best on mobile platforms to use a task killer where Facebook,
Instagram, and other socially needy apps (e.g., WhatsApp) get unloaded
instead of left running in the background when you "exit" the app.
It is not practical to actually stop WhatsApp, because then you do not
get new messages.
They don't pend retrieval until the next time you load the app? So, if you're not addicted to the app to react like Pavolov's dogs to
immediately respond to a received message, you don't get to see the
message at all? What happens when you power down your phone, or it's
battery goes dead from getting drained, and it's a while before you get
it charged to power on the phone? All those messages sent while you
were offline are lost? WhatsApp messages are real-time only?
On 2025-06-14 16:14, Andy Burns wrote:
On 14/06/2025 15:28, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Carlos like many others is. *SCNR*
What do the French railways have to do with it :-P
Despite the smiley, I feel bound to point out that the acronyms don't
match ...
SNCF = Société Nationale des Chemins de fer Français
On 14.06.25 14:59, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-06-14 08:03, VanguardLH wrote:
"Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d> wrote:
...
Be aware that disabling the WebRTC API can break some web sites.
Probably best on mobile platforms to use a task killer where Facebook,
Instagram, and other socially needy apps (e.g., WhatsApp) get unloaded
instead of left running in the background when you "exit" the app.
It is not practical to actually stop WhatsApp, because then you do not
get new messages.
Simply the best that can happen. There are a lot of better messengers.
No mercy for the idiots that use Zuckerberg-crap.
On 14/06/2025 15:28, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 14.06.25 16:08, VanguardLH wrote:What do the French railways have to do with it :-P
So, if you're not addicted to the app
Carlos like many others is. *SCNR*
I'm sorry to say that about everybody in Spain uses WhatsApp, even businesses. Like the Bank. It is what it is.
On 2025-06-14 16:27, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 14.06.25 14:59, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-06-14 08:03, VanguardLH wrote:
"Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d> wrote:
...
Be aware that disabling the WebRTC API can break some web sites.
Probably best on mobile platforms to use a task killer where
Facebook, Instagram, and other socially needy apps (e.g., WhatsApp)
get unloaded instead of left running in the background when you
"exit" the app.
It is not practical to actually stop WhatsApp, because then you do
not get new messages. >> Simply the best that can happen. There are
a lot of better >> messengers. >> No mercy for the idiots that use
Zuckerberg-crap.
I'm sorry to say that about everybody in Spain uses WhatsApp, even businesses. Like the Bank. It is what it is.
On 2025-06-14 16:08, VanguardLH wrote:
"Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 2025-06-14 08:03, VanguardLH wrote:
"Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d> wrote:
...
Be aware that disabling the WebRTC API can break some web sites.
Probably best on mobile platforms to use a task killer where Facebook, >>>> Instagram, and other socially needy apps (e.g., WhatsApp) get unloaded >>>> instead of left running in the background when you "exit" the app.
It is not practical to actually stop WhatsApp, because then you do not
get new messages.
They don't pend retrieval until the next time you load the app? So, if
you're not addicted to the app to react like Pavolov's dogs to
It is not addiction. We use WA to communicate, sometimes serious things.
You can miss a meeting.
On 2025-06-14 16:27, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 14.06.25 14:59, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-06-14 08:03, VanguardLH wrote:
"Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d> wrote:
...
Be aware that disabling the WebRTC API can break some web sites.
Probably best on mobile platforms to use a task killer where Facebook, >>>> Instagram, and other socially needy apps (e.g., WhatsApp) get unloaded >>>> instead of left running in the background when you "exit" the app.
It is not practical to actually stop WhatsApp, because then you do not
get new messages.
Simply the best that can happen. There are a lot of better messengers.
No mercy for the idiots that use Zuckerberg-crap.
I'm sorry to say that about everybody in Spain uses WhatsApp, even businesses. Like the Bank. It is what it is.
On 14.06.25 21:51, Richmond wrote:
"Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d> writes:
On 2025-06-14 16:27, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 14.06.25 14:59, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-06-14 08:03, VanguardLH wrote:
"Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d> wrote:
...
Be aware that disabling the WebRTC API can break some web sites.
Probably best on mobile platforms to use a task killer where
Facebook, Instagram, and other socially needy apps (e.g.,
WhatsApp) get unloaded instead of left running in the background
when you "exit" the app.
It is not practical to actually stop WhatsApp, because then you do
not get new messages. >> Simply the best that can happen. There
are a lot of better >> messengers. >> No mercy for the idiots
that use Zuckerberg-crap.
I'm sorry to say that about everybody in Spain uses WhatsApp, even
businesses. Like the Bank. It is what it is.
Many organisations use facebook too, even churches. All we can do is
complain to them that they are not checking out the ethics of these
companies. They know they have us over a barrel. It's hard to argue
with free calls when the landline can cost 10p per minute, or a free
website.
Churches are not the benchmark for anything. They totally lack the
know how and the competence in digital communication. To use of
private means of communication like Zuckerberg-apps are a pact with
the devil. *SCNR*
"Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d> writes:
On 2025-06-14 16:27, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 14.06.25 14:59, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-06-14 08:03, VanguardLH wrote:
"Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d> wrote:
...
Be aware that disabling the WebRTC API can break some web sites.
Probably best on mobile platforms to use a task killer where
Facebook, Instagram, and other socially needy apps (e.g., WhatsApp)
get unloaded instead of left running in the background when you
"exit" the app.
It is not practical to actually stop WhatsApp, because then you do
not get new messages. >> Simply the best that can happen. There are
a lot of better >> messengers. >> No mercy for the idiots that use
Zuckerberg-crap.
I'm sorry to say that about everybody in Spain uses WhatsApp, even
businesses. Like the Bank. It is what it is.
Many organisations use facebook too, even churches. All we can do is
complain to them that they are not checking out the ethics of these companies. They know they have us over a barrel. It's hard to argue with
free calls when the landline can cost 10p per minute, or a free website.
On 14.06.25 19:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-06-14 16:08, VanguardLH wrote:
"Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 2025-06-14 08:03, VanguardLH wrote:
"Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d> wrote:
...
Be aware that disabling the WebRTC API can break some web sites.
Probably best on mobile platforms to use a task killer where Facebook, >>>>> Instagram, and other socially needy apps (e.g., WhatsApp) get unloaded >>>>> instead of left running in the background when you "exit" the app.
It is not practical to actually stop WhatsApp, because then you do not >>>> get new messages.
They don't pend retrieval until the next time you load the app? So, if
you're not addicted to the app to react like Pavolov's dogs to
It is not addiction. We use WA to communicate, sometimes serious things.
You can miss a meeting.
Something is terribly wrong with your statement as we learn every day: Serious or important things should never be communicated over WA. It is
that simple. The topic of this thread is confirming this strongly.
On 14.06.25 19:57, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-06-14 16:27, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 14.06.25 14:59, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-06-14 08:03, VanguardLH wrote:
"Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d> wrote:
...
Be aware that disabling the WebRTC API can break some web sites.
Probably best on mobile platforms to use a task killer where Facebook, >>>>> Instagram, and other socially needy apps (e.g., WhatsApp) get unloaded >>>>> instead of left running in the background when you "exit" the app.
It is not practical to actually stop WhatsApp, because then you do not >>>> get new messages.
Simply the best that can happen. There are a lot of better messengers.
No mercy for the idiots that use Zuckerberg-crap.
I'm sorry to say that about everybody in Spain uses WhatsApp, even
businesses. Like the Bank. It is what it is.
No serious and trustful bank would ever use WA.
This is kindergarten.
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 19:57:41 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
I'm sorry to say that about everybody in Spain uses WhatsApp, even
businesses. Like the Bank. It is what it is.
Please ignore Joerg. He feels compelled to ROTFWL on every thread.
He has nothing to add. He's a worthless despicable human being.
Now... as for your point - I agree with you since I agree with anyone who makes a sensible logical statement.
Even I use WhatsApp. And I care about privacy.
So I'm happy you (and Richmond) brought this up.
I don't understand the implications, but I can tell others that I use WhatsApp for two sensible reasons, one of which is that it's what all my relatives use on their mobile phones in Germany. So it's what works since calling them would cost me an arm and a leg with international prices.
The other reason is the parents of both my great grandchildren use Apple devices, so everything is blurry without using something like WhatsApp.
Sure, another messenger would work, but so does WhatsApp.
Caveat in the sig.
On 2025-06-14 21:50, Marion wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 19:57:41 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
I'm sorry to say that about everybody in Spain uses WhatsApp, even
businesses. Like the Bank. It is what it is. >> Please ignore
Joerg. He feels compelled to ROTFWL on every thread. >> He has
nothing to add. He's a worthless despicable human being. >>
Now... as for your point - I agree with you since I agree with >>
anyone who >> makes a sensible logical statement. >> Even I use
WhatsApp. And I care about privacy. >> So I'm happy you (and
Richmond) brought this up. >> I don't understand the implications,
but I can tell others that I >> use >> WhatsApp for two sensible
reasons, one of which is that it's what all my >> relatives use on
their mobile phones in Germany. So it's what works since >> calling
them would cost me an arm and a leg with international prices. >>
The other reason is the parents of both my great grandchildren use
like WhatsApp. >> Sure, another messenger would work, but so doesApple >> devices, so everything is blurry without using something
WhatsApp. >> Caveat in the sig.
That WhatsApp has been affected by this security leak is still
unclear. The author of the article I posted doesn't know. Facebook and Instagram yes, certainly. But WhatsApp promises encrypted
communications are kept private, end to end encryption. Listening to
them would be a major breach of trust (except with a court
order). This is not the same with Facebook, which is intended to
publish things.
So, we're back to how WebRTC can be abused to identify you. While the desktop web browsers let you disable WebRTC through settings, the deliberately crippled mobile web browsers do not. Alas, even the
desktop web browsers are taking away the option to disable WebRTC, so
you need an add-on for them, too.
You can test by visiting:
https://webbrowsertools.com/test-webrtc-leak/
https://ipleak.net/
(look under "Your IP addresses - WebRTC detection")
Be aware that disabling the WebRTC API can break some web sites.
Even if using a VPN, WebRTC could still expose your IP addresses, so you should test and a leak test site while using your VPN.
On 14/06/2025 15:28, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 14.06.25 16:08, VanguardLH wrote:What do the French railways have to do with it :-P
So, if you're not addicted to the app
Carlos like many others is. *SCNR*
I'm sorry to say that about everybody in Spain uses WhatsApp, even
businesses. Like the Bank. It is what it is.
Many organisations use facebook too, even churches. All we can do is
complain to them that they are not checking out the ethics of these companies. They know they have us over a barrel. It's hard to argue with
free calls when the landline can cost 10p per minute, or a free website.
That WhatsApp has been affected by this security leak is still unclear.
The author of the article I posted doesn't know. Facebook and Instagram
yes, certainly. But WhatsApp promises encrypted communications are kept private, end to end encryption. Listening to them would be a major
breach of trust (except with a court order). This is not the same with Facebook, which is intended to publish things.
On 2025-06-14 22:29, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 14.06.25 19:57, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-06-14 16:27, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 14.06.25 14:59, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-06-14 08:03, VanguardLH wrote:
"Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d> wrote:
...
Be aware that disabling the WebRTC API can break some web sites.
Probably best on mobile platforms to use a task killer where Facebook, >>>>>> Instagram, and other socially needy apps (e.g., WhatsApp) get unloaded >>>>>> instead of left running in the background when you "exit" the app.
It is not practical to actually stop WhatsApp, because then you do not >>>>> get new messages.
Simply the best that can happen. There are a lot of better messengers. >>>> No mercy for the idiots that use Zuckerberg-crap.
I'm sorry to say that about everybody in Spain uses WhatsApp, even
businesses. Like the Bank. It is what it is.
No serious and trustful bank would ever use WA.
This is kindergarten.
You go and tell them, maybe they will listen to you.
"Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d> writes:
On 2025-06-14 21:50, Marion wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 19:57:41 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
I'm sorry to say that about everybody in Spain uses WhatsApp, even
businesses. Like the Bank. It is what it is. >> Please ignore
Joerg. He feels compelled to ROTFWL on every thread. >> He has
nothing to add. He's a worthless despicable human being. >>
Now... as for your point - I agree with you since I agree with >>
anyone who >> makes a sensible logical statement. >> Even I use
WhatsApp. And I care about privacy. >> So I'm happy you (and
Richmond) brought this up. >> I don't understand the implications,
but I can tell others that I >> use >> WhatsApp for two sensible
reasons, one of which is that it's what all my >> relatives use on
their mobile phones in Germany. So it's what works since >> calling
them would cost me an arm and a leg with international prices. >>
The other reason is the parents of both my great grandchildren use
like WhatsApp. >> Sure, another messenger would work, but so doesApple >> devices, so everything is blurry without using something
WhatsApp. >> Caveat in the sig.
That WhatsApp has been affected by this security leak is still
unclear. The author of the article I posted doesn't know. Facebook and
Instagram yes, certainly. But WhatsApp promises encrypted
communications are kept private, end to end encryption. Listening to
them would be a major breach of trust (except with a court
order). This is not the same with Facebook, which is intended to
publish things.
The point is, whatsapp is closed source, it could be doing other things beside sending your messages. It could be snooping on other things and sending that data elsewhere. Meta has now demonstrated it doesn't worry
too much about the law. Do you want that software on your phone? or are
you going to wait for the next thing to be discovered?
Does Facebook provide free calls? Or do you mean WhatsApp instead?
I get my free calls (in & out) with Google Voice (on the iPad only).
(Google Voice on Android creates a Google Account on the device!)
It calls any number (including POTS) and it receives from any number.
And it sends the voicemail to an email address. All for free.
But it won't call Europe for free.
SO I use WhatsApp (with the separate dialer so I don't have WA
contacts). Everyone I know in Germany uses WhatsApp (which is one
reason I use it).
The other reason for WhatsApp (without the dialer) is that I get grandchildren and now great grandchildren videos daily and they're all
messed up on my PUlseSMS Android messenger from the iPhone parents.
Even I use WhatsApp. And I care about privacy.
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 23:48:24 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
That WhatsApp has been affected by this security leak is still unclear.
The author of the article I posted doesn't know. Facebook and Instagram
yes, certainly. But WhatsApp promises encrypted communications are kept
private, end to end encryption. Listening to them would be a major
breach of trust (except with a court order). This is not the same with
Facebook, which is intended to publish things.
Thanks Carlos for summarizing as I am also unclear what the privacy implications are. I don't use FB or Instagram but my kids and grandkids use Snapchat and Telegram.
Let's hope the courts handle this efficiently.
Thanks for keeping us informed as I was blissfully unaware of this issue.
I saw Richmond's response just before sending this where the problem is *replacing* WhatsApp where it's not so hard to get my family to use, oh,
say, Google Voice, but is that any safer? I use Google Voice but only on
the iPad (because Google adds an account on the Android phone if you use GV on Android but Google can't do that on an iOS device - heh heh heh).
The problem is the Europeans all use WhatsApp daily.
To Richmond's suggestion, how do I get the relatives in Germany to use something else?
"Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d> writes:
On 2025-06-14 21:50, Marion wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 19:57:41 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
I'm sorry to say that about everybody in Spain uses WhatsApp, even
businesses. Like the Bank. It is what it is. >> Please ignore
Joerg. He feels compelled to ROTFWL on every thread. >> He has
nothing to add. He's a worthless despicable human being. >>
Now... as for your point - I agree with you since I agree with >>
anyone who >> makes a sensible logical statement. >> Even I use
WhatsApp. And I care about privacy. >> So I'm happy you (and
Richmond) brought this up. >> I don't understand the implications,
but I can tell others that I >> use >> WhatsApp for two sensible
reasons, one of which is that it's what all my >> relatives use on
their mobile phones in Germany. So it's what works since >> calling
them would cost me an arm and a leg with international prices. >>
The other reason is the parents of both my great grandchildren use
like WhatsApp. >> Sure, another messenger would work, but so doesApple >> devices, so everything is blurry without using something
WhatsApp. >> Caveat in the sig.
That WhatsApp has been affected by this security leak is still
unclear. The author of the article I posted doesn't know. Facebook and
Instagram yes, certainly. But WhatsApp promises encrypted
communications are kept private, end to end encryption. Listening to
them would be a major breach of trust (except with a court
order). This is not the same with Facebook, which is intended to
publish things.
The point is, whatsapp is closed source, it could be doing other things beside sending your messages. It could be snooping on other things and sending that data elsewhere. Meta has now demonstrated it doesn't worry
too much about the law. Do you want that software on your phone? or are
you going to wait for the next thing to be discovered?
On 14.06.25 23:43, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-06-14 22:29, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 14.06.25 19:57, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-06-14 16:27, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 14.06.25 14:59, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-06-14 08:03, VanguardLH wrote:
"Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d> wrote:
...
Be aware that disabling the WebRTC API can break some web sites. >>>>>>> Probably best on mobile platforms to use a task killer where Facebook, >>>>>>> Instagram, and other socially needy apps (e.g., WhatsApp) get unloaded >>>>>>> instead of left running in the background when you "exit" the app. >>>>>>It is not practical to actually stop WhatsApp, because then you do not >>>>>> get new messages.
Simply the best that can happen. There are a lot of better messengers. >>>>> No mercy for the idiots that use Zuckerberg-crap.
I'm sorry to say that about everybody in Spain uses WhatsApp, even
businesses. Like the Bank. It is what it is.
No serious and trustful bank would ever use WA.
This is kindergarten.
You go and tell them, maybe they will listen to you.
Obviously with the exception of Spain they do. No thoughtful
organisation would ever expect clients to use private Zuckerber-crap.
Full Stop.
On 2025-06-15 01:15, Richmond wrote:
"Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d> writes:
On 2025-06-14 21:50, Marion wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 19:57:41 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
I'm sorry to say that about everybody in Spain uses WhatsApp, even
businesses. Like the Bank. It is what it is. >> Please ignore
Joerg. He feels compelled to ROTFWL on every thread. >> He has
nothing to add. He's a worthless despicable human being. >>
Now... as for your point - I agree with you since I agree with >>
anyone who >> makes a sensible logical statement. >> Even I use
WhatsApp. And I care about privacy. >> So I'm happy you (and
Richmond) brought this up. >> I don't understand the
implications, but I can tell others that I >> use >> WhatsApp for
two sensible reasons, one of which is that it's what all my >>
relatives use on their mobile phones in Germany. So it's what
works since >> calling them would cost me an arm and a leg with
international prices. >> The other reason is the parents of both
my great grandchildren use >> Apple >> devices, so everything is
blurry without using something like WhatsApp. >> Sure, another
messenger would work, but so does WhatsApp. >> Caveat in the sig.
That WhatsApp has been affected by this security leak is still
unclear. The author of the article I posted doesn't know. Facebook
and Instagram yes, certainly. But WhatsApp promises encrypted
communications are kept private, end to end encryption. Listening to
them would be a major breach of trust (except with a court
order). This is not the same with Facebook, which is intended to
publish things. >> The point is, whatsapp is closed source, it
could be doing other >> things >> beside sending your messages. It
could be snooping on other things and >> sending that data
elsewhere. Meta has now demonstrated it doesn't worry >> too much
about the law. Do you want that software on your phone? or are >>
you going to wait for the next thing to be discovered?
I really do not have a choice in this.
I know that it doesn't read our messages, and that is good enough. It
will have to do.
"Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d> writes:
On 2025-06-15 01:15, Richmond wrote:
"Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d> writes:
On 2025-06-14 21:50, Marion wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 19:57:41 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
I'm sorry to say that about everybody in Spain uses WhatsApp, even >>>>>> businesses. Like the Bank. It is what it is. >> Please ignore
Joerg. He feels compelled to ROTFWL on every thread. >> He has
nothing to add. He's a worthless despicable human being. >>
Now... as for your point - I agree with you since I agree with >>
anyone who >> makes a sensible logical statement. >> Even I use
WhatsApp. And I care about privacy. >> So I'm happy you (and
Richmond) brought this up. >> I don't understand the
implications, but I can tell others that I >> use >> WhatsApp for
two sensible reasons, one of which is that it's what all my >>
relatives use on their mobile phones in Germany. So it's what
works since >> calling them would cost me an arm and a leg with
international prices. >> The other reason is the parents of both
my great grandchildren use >> Apple >> devices, so everything is
blurry without using something like WhatsApp. >> Sure, another
messenger would work, but so does WhatsApp. >> Caveat in the sig.
That WhatsApp has been affected by this security leak is still
unclear. The author of the article I posted doesn't know. Facebook
and Instagram yes, certainly. But WhatsApp promises encrypted
communications are kept private, end to end encryption. Listening to
them would be a major breach of trust (except with a court
order). This is not the same with Facebook, which is intended to
publish things. >> The point is, whatsapp is closed source, it
could be doing other >> things >> beside sending your messages. It
could be snooping on other things and >> sending that data
elsewhere. Meta has now demonstrated it doesn't worry >> too much
about the law. Do you want that software on your phone? or are >>
you going to wait for the next thing to be discovered?
I really do not have a choice in this.
I know that it doesn't read our messages, and that is good enough. It
will have to do.
I am going to complain to the Information Commissioner's Office. But it
is a long process. I don't have any of the apps installed, but I did
once have a phone with facebook pre-installed, and this illegal activity
has been going on since 2017 according to the reports.
The point is, whatsapp is closed source, it could be doing other things beside sending your messages. It could be snooping on other things and sending that data elsewhere. Meta has now demonstrated it doesn't worry
too much about the law. Do you want that software on your phone? or are
you going to wait for the next thing to be discovered?
Richmond <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
The point is, whatsapp is closed source, it could be doing other things
beside sending your messages. It could be snooping on other things and
sending that data elsewhere. Meta has now demonstrated it doesn't worry
too much about the law. Do you want that software on your phone? or are
you going to wait for the next thing to be discovered?
I just was in the UK for two weeks and the TV broadcasts are
splattered with commercials from WhatsApp, saying that your messages are
safe and that no-one, including WhatsApp can read them.
Of course, commercials 'lie' all the time, but these would open
WhatsApp to some serious legal action (and fines), so until proven
otherwise, we'll should assume that WhatsApp is *not* lying.
On 2025-06-22 12:15, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Richmond <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
The point is, whatsapp is closed source, it could be doing other things
beside sending your messages. It could be snooping on other things and
sending that data elsewhere. Meta has now demonstrated it doesn't worry
too much about the law. Do you want that software on your phone? or are
you going to wait for the next thing to be discovered?
I just was in the UK for two weeks and the TV broadcasts are
splattered with commercials from WhatsApp, saying that your messages are safe and that no-one, including WhatsApp can read them.
Of course, commercials 'lie' all the time, but these would open
WhatsApp to some serious legal action (and fines), so until proven otherwise, we'll should assume that WhatsApp is *not* lying.
I understand they can read them with a court order. Somehow. Maybe it
means they have to impound the phones first.
There are some corruption cases in the media now in Spain, and their WA conversations are being displayed on TV all the time.
Carlos E.R. <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 2025-06-22 12:15, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Richmond <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
The point is, whatsapp is closed source, it could be doing other things >>>> beside sending your messages. It could be snooping on other things and >>>> sending that data elsewhere. Meta has now demonstrated it doesn't worry >>>> too much about the law. Do you want that software on your phone? or are >>>> you going to wait for the next thing to be discovered?
I just was in the UK for two weeks and the TV broadcasts are
splattered with commercials from WhatsApp, saying that your messages are >>> safe and that no-one, including WhatsApp can read them.
Of course, commercials 'lie' all the time, but these would open
WhatsApp to some serious legal action (and fines), so until proven
otherwise, we'll should assume that WhatsApp is *not* lying.
I understand they can read them with a court order. Somehow. Maybe it
means they have to impound the phones first.
There are some corruption cases in the media now in Spain, and their WA
conversations are being displayed on TV all the time.
That could well be cases of unencrypted WhatsApp *backup*, on the
*device* (i.e. private unless/until hacked) or/and on the *user*'s
Google Drive (same).
By default, WhatsApp *backup* is unencrypted, but that doesn't mean
that others - than the 'owner'/user of the chats - or WhatsApp can read
them.
Richmond <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
The point is, whatsapp is closed source, it could be doing other things
beside sending your messages. It could be snooping on other things and
sending that data elsewhere. Meta has now demonstrated it doesn't worry
too much about the law. Do you want that software on your phone? or are
you going to wait for the next thing to be discovered?
I just was in the UK for two weeks and the TV broadcasts are
splattered with commercials from WhatsApp, saying that your messages are
safe and that no-one, including WhatsApp can read them.
Of course, commercials 'lie' all the time, but these would open
WhatsApp to some serious legal action (and fines), so until proven
otherwise, we'll should assume that WhatsApp is *not* lying.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 144:51:46 |
| Calls: | 12,089 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,493 |