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

Technology

79576 readers
4050 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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 day ago

You gatta be real stupid to not realize that Facebook is harvesting your data.

[–] sefra1@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 day ago

Only a tech illiterate can expect privacy from a closed source program, open source is a requirement for both privacy and security.

[–] roserose56@lemmy.zip 32 points 1 day ago

No surprised at all tbf.

[–] BanMe@lemmy.world 119 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Well if I can't trust Meta with my information, who CAN I trust

[–] chemicalprophet@slrpnk.net 60 points 2 days ago (4 children)
[–] usernameusername@sh.itjust.works 49 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Oh okay. My location is 55.752121, 37.617664, my full name is Jeremy, and my password is hunter9. I trust you not to tell this to anybody

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 41 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Your full name is "Jeremy"?

[–] usernameusername@sh.itjust.works 32 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Oh god damnit chemicalprofet why did you tell this guy i thougjt i could trust you :((

[–] bear@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

All I see is '••••••'

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 27 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Your secret is safe with us and our 36,893 affiliates.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 60 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

15 years ago I’d have called this a conspiracy theory given how the evidence seems to be anecdotal, but given literally every single other thing we’ve learned in recent times about how cartoonishly evil and lying the tech bros truly are, it seems entirely likely.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Delilah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 76 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Wait, you are telling me that the company whos entire business is collecting personal information, including people who don't sign up for their services, to leverage for advertising, is keeping their platforms unsecured they can continually grab more information rather than secure it?

I for one am shocked, absolutely shocked.

[–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, except they’re not leveraging your data for advertising, they’re leveraging it so they can manipulate your political views and keep you from finding solidarity with other working people.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] M1k3y@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Im not a big fan of meta and WhatsApp, but these claims are a bit much. Any employee gets access to messages through a well documented internal process? "No separate decryption step is required" , so the WhatsApp CLIENT is not doing any actual e2e encryption and no attempt at reverse engineering or traffic analysis has ever seen that this is the case?

Where can one see, what these whistleblowers have actually published? I would expect to see this "simple process" and how that interface actually works... And I would expect any journalist to request some proof (show me the last message i sent to Alice) before trusting an anonymous whistleblower making such an extraordinary claim.

From what I heard so far, that anonymous whistleblower could be a troll or an ex-employee who just wants to cause some trouble for meta.

We should not trust anything blindly, even if it fits with our view of the world. Meta is an evil company, but as long as there is no indication for these specific allegations to be true, we should treat them as unfounded allegations.

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

Of course we shouldn't trust anything blindly, but we also need to use common sense. Have we seen proof that what's claimed to be true is in fact true? No. But it might be true, and it's consistent with what Meta would do. So if your cautious minded, you should assume it's true for now while you go through the next few years of your life waiting for discovery.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 168 points 2 days ago (3 children)
[–] sexy_peach@feddit.org 127 points 2 days ago (44 children)

No if this is proven it would be a real scandal and would bring a lot of users to better alternatives.

If it's false that's good too, since then WA has e2e encryption

[–] MrSoup@lemmy.zip 109 points 2 days ago (6 children)

would bring a lot of users to better alternatives.

Most users of whatsapp don't care about e2e. They hardly even know what it is.

[–] dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 43 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Right. This place sometimes forget that we are tiny community of techies that hate the system. Makes me see this place as a bit of a circlejerk at times.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (43 replies)
[–] justanotheruser4@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

That's just another comment

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 day ago

Proposed line of defense: "With all respect, M. Judge, with all the different times we fucked our users, lied to them, tricked them, experimented on them, ignored them, we already sold private discussions on Facebook in the past, our CEO and founder most famous quote is «They trust me, dumbfucks!», the list goes on and on: no one in their sane mind would genuinely believe we were not spying on Whatsapp! They try to play dumb, they could not possibly believe we were being fair and honest THIS time?!"

[–] socsa@piefed.social 62 points 2 days ago (5 children)

It is end to end encrypted but they can just pull the decrypted message from the app. This has been assumed for years, since they said they could parse messages for advertising purposes.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 99 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The biggest news is that Slashdot is still alive.

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 66 points 2 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wuffah@lemmy.world 81 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Assume the same for Telegram and pretty much any chat platform that controls your private keys.

[–] zeca@lemmy.ml 45 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Telegram doesnt even pretend to be end to end encrypted.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PierceTheBubble@lemmy.ml 46 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

E2EE isn't really relevant, when the "ends" have the functionality, to share data with Meta directly: as "reports", "customer support", "assistance" (Meta AI); where a UI element is the separation.

Edit: it turns out cloud backups aren't E2E encrypted by default... meaning: any backup data, which passes through Meta's servers, to the cloud providers (like iCloud or Google Account), is unobscured to Meta; unless E2EE is explicitly enabled. And even then, WhatsApp's privacy policy states: "if you use a data backup service integrated with our Services (like iCloud or Google Account), they will receive information you share with them, such as your WhatsApp messages." So the encryption happens on the server side, meaning: Apple and Google still have full access to the content. It doesn't matter if you, personally, refuse to use the "feature": if the other end does, your interactions will be included in their backups.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Rusty@lemmy.ca 58 points 2 days ago (5 children)

If I am not adding my own private key to the app, like in Tox, I don't trust their encryption.

[–] wallabra@lemmy.eco.br 43 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (19 children)

Tox also isn't that great security wise. It's hard to beat Signal when it comes to security messengers. And Signal is open source so

load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›