this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2026
1266 points (99.6% liked)

Technology

79576 readers
3977 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
[–] PieMePlenty@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

I never used WhatsApp, but what made people think they used e2e? I'm way passed blindly believing what any company says they do without proof. I'd expect some kind of key or certificate management in the app, is that present?

Heck.. my default is still to think every website does plaintext password storage. I can't prove it, but neither can they. Stop storing my passwords in plaintext lemmy! /s

[–] Ozymandias88@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (2 children)

People expect it what WhatsApp claims it's E2E encrypted at the start of each chat:

Screenshot from the start of a WhatsApp thread where WhatsApp prints "Messages and calls are end-to-end encrypted. Only people in this chat can read, listen to, or share them."

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And also because at some point they hired Signal people to design E2EE for them, I think.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

I don't think they hired them, they just use the open source code library that the signal app also uses.

[–] PieMePlenty@lemmy.world -3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I mean yeah, I get that.. but why would I believe that? Its trivial to add a label in an app and make it say that. I'm questioning trust here. My question should have rather been: why do people trust Meta will do exactly what they say? Its Meta, that immediately sends alarms to my brain saying to stay cautious. Like I said, there's no way to verify what that piece of text says and the people who would be interested in e2e encryption are also that kind of people who should know what a trusted authority is.

[–] ytg@sopuli.xyz 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

but why would I believe that?

No inherent reason to believe that, but seems like lying about this should be illegal. The belief is in Meta's compliance with the law rather than in its ethics, which, according to these claims, is unfortunately an unfounded belief.

[–] architect@thelemmy.club 0 points 1 day ago

Why would the law matter? We clearly saw him bribe the president. It was public and in our faces.

[–] purplemonkeymad@programming.dev 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Around a year ago WhatsApp had large ads that just said "no one else can read your messages." I don't think most people thought that some one could, which makes me wonder why they were paying so much to say it.

[–] foo@feddit.uk 7 points 1 day ago

Any time they get asked questions like "Are my messages visible only to me?", they answer with a very canned response like "Your messages are encrypted from end-to-end and can't be read by anyone while in transit" ... or words to that effect. I have never seen them state that no analytics or telemetry is happening on the unencrypted side by the client. Which has always bothered me.

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because after N scandals, they needed to make sure people would trust them. Meta had never considered itself bound to any promise or commitment they ever made to anyone (users, ads customers, etc.). But you want a monopole, you need to make sure people see no issue with using your services.

And they're doing it again with Threads. And it works AGAIN, because they promised not to do anything evil. Pending the next inevitable scandal with users flabbergasted that Meta could have done it AGAIN.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Is anyone actually still using threads? I thought all the Twitter refugees ended up on Bluesky.

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

If I trust the numbers I found, Threads has 200M users, vs 2.5--3M for all of Mastodon's instances but-Threads.

Down the same road, again.

[–] foo@feddit.uk 9 points 1 day ago

Back at the start WhatsApp wasn't free, although it was pretty cheap. Then Meta bought it and made it free. Some time after that, the founders left and started Signal.

The E2E encrypted protocol WhatsApp used to use was the Signal protocol. When the OG founders left and created Signal they revamped it, calling it the Signal V2 protocol. Whether WhatsApp still uses that original Signal protocol or not is probably not known to many people outside of Meta, but WhatsApp definitely used to be E2E encrypted prior to Meta's purchase.

I deleted my WhatsApp account around the time Meta announced they were merging all of their messaging stuff together, e.g. Facebook Messenger, Instagram etc.