upvote
I personally don't use whatsapp because I like it, but because all my contacts in my country are over there. It is officially more used than SMS here. It is not optional in my case :/
reply
SMS is unsafe anyway.
reply
zuck can read your whatsapp messages, at this point I think I'd rather criminals and the government read them instead
reply
WhatsApp is end-to-end encrypted. No one at Meta can read your messages.
reply
Saw this exact claim on a billboard not too long ago

It's a strangely worded statement. What about data collection, metadata, other third parties

Maybe it's related to the fact that plaintiffs lawyers are now trying to verify what's going on inside Meta with WhatsApp through litigation discovery:

https://ia801607.us.archive.org/10/items/gov.uscourts.cand.4...

Meta's motion to dismiss seemed a little weak. Time will tell

https://ia801607.us.archive.org/10/items/gov.uscourts.cand.4...

Hearing will likely be sometime this summer

reply
If I can log into whatsapp on a new device and old messages aren’t encrypted then they have a copy of your key and it is not true e2e encryption.
reply
You can't unless you've chosen to back up your WhatsApp messages to iCloud/Google in which case it's Apple/Google responsible for preserving the messages and subject to their encryption standards, nothing to do with Meta.
reply
Try logging in on a new device and putting your main device into aeroplane mode as soon as the login succeeds. Loading of old messages on the new device will stop.
reply
How are we sure that it is really end-to-end encrypted?
reply
Moxie Marlinspike (founder of Signal) [0]implemented the same E2EE algorithm as Signal (Signal Protocol) into WhatsApp, but that was 10 years ago, so who knows if things have changed since then.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moxie_Marlinspike

reply
Practically speaking, it isn't secure; no closed app can be. It receives regular compulsory updates (old versions refuse to work) and there's nothing at all stopping Zuck from sneaking in backdoors targeted at you personally.
reply
yeah who wants marginally regulated oligarchs -- Give me fully unregulated criminals!
reply
Nobody gives a damn. What matters is that it works even on a potato.

SMS security only became a problem due to 2FA, which is just one of many use cases, and the failure isn't even technical here but organizational. I agree it should've prompted more pressure to secure the system against SIM-swapping; alas this is too close to the Real World, so the tech industry instead responded with alternative that side-steps the problem by offering zero customer support. No humans to talk to = no humans to social engineer = secure. So much win.

(I'd also say the 2FA proliferation is itself a problem, but that's an unpopular opinion and for a separate discussion.)

reply
> Nobody gives a damn. What matters is that it works even on a potato.

It doesn't work on my computer, nor does it work on my phone when I'm traveling (different SIM), so I give a damn. WhatsApp, iMessage, Signal etc. do both. I really wish there was an open, federated standard (and no, RCS is neither), but until then, I'll use what actually works for me.

SMS just sucks, and I hate that it's become so ubiquitous an authentication method when it's not even secure.

reply
You can rent a virtual mobile number in your home country and consult SMSs on the web or even redirect them to email. I have done this for years, using Twilio for 2€ a month. Can't say the UX is great but it certainly fixes the whole problem.

I've never understood why so many people still chain their identities to physical SIM or even eSIMs. It's so fragile.

reply
> I've never understood why so many people still chain their identities to physical SIM or even eSIMs. It's so fragile.

Living in a place where getting a replacement sim is gated behind obtaining an id from the police tied to your national id number, I wish there were other identity systems which were as robust. Much easier to get back to normal operations when the id device becomes damaged or lost with a physical sim you can shove into a cheap replacement device, than relying on backup services you need one of your digital id devices to access in the first place, especially if they're all lost at the same time in a house fire or something. The police will presumably get all my photo backups and savings if they ask nicely anyways, so the big threat to the single point of failure doesn't have a great marginal impact, while I dread the possibility of having to recover the accounts I can't get back through the local legal system given the poor 2fa recovery ecosystem.

reply
>Much easier to get back to normal operations when the id device becomes damaged or lost with a physical sim you can shove into a cheap replacement device

If the device can get damaged or lost, then the SIM can too. To buy a physical SIM or rent a virtual number online, in most jurisdictions you need to provide ID docs these days, so nothing is changed there.

reply
Yeah, that's a good workaround. Google Voice can work too.

Unfortunately, more and more services are declining to send to VoIP numbers because of seCurItY, so it's a game of cat and mouse.

Fortunately SMS is so expensive in parts of Europe and it's not allowable anymore to use SMS by itself for online payment authentication, and both issues combined have slowly been pushing companies to explore alternatives.

There unfortunately seems to be no such pressure in the US. Passkeys could solve the issue, but probably increase support request volumes enough for most companies to not bother unless forced.

reply
If you port a landline number to a VoIP service, services can't really tell that you're using VoIP, as far as I can tell.
reply
It's easy and cheap to determine the original carrier (or its sucessor) for a US phone number. It costs money to do a porting lookup to determine the current carrier.

Most of the reason to deny voip users is that many voip services give phone numbers away like candy and then those phone numbers are used to abuse other services, so checking the original carrier tends to be enough for abuse screening.

Some use cases want more though. Banking KYC has some back channel to get subscriber identification or be alerted when ownership changes; those institutions may be willing to pay for current carrier lookups and deny usage of numbers where they don't have a back channel to the current carrier.

reply
This is great info, thanks!
reply
In the US, I belive there are three number categories in the NANP porting database (wireline, cellular, and VoIP), and SMS senders can definitely tell, even though it might take a while (presumably there's a lot of caching going on).

If you're lucky, the service you care about only validates at number registration time, not at text sending time, and you can get away with it indefinitely, I suppose.

reply
I thought that too but many carriers around me don't allow porting any VoIP-using number back to cellular. (Not sure if you were making a distinction between landline and cellular)

Unfortunately that means that my cell number which I wanted to temporarily park into VoIP while abroad is now permanently VoIP.

reply
Second this. Their API is such a breeze and it is so much more automation friendly than any other messenger platform. It has a good adoption % too, otherwise Signal is the real winner if we account for privacy.
reply
Even more automation friendly than Matrix?
reply
It's a bit less automation-friendly because the UX is not great when the bot doesn't have its own phone number (which costs money). I think it has better privacy, though. Matrix server operators can read message metadata.
reply
Telegram server operators can read message meta data and messages
reply
You're right, Matrix is a much better option than Telegram. I misread the thread as comparing Signal to Matrix.
reply
Unfortunately, I haven't used Matrix personally enough to comment, sorry. But, I've heard only good things about it so far.
reply
I'll second the "Telegram is great for bots". It's the reason OpenClaw users use it.

I stopped using OpenClaw a while ago, but I did vibe code the very basic automations I had used OpenClaw for. Getting it to work with Telegram was trivial.

I don't use Telegram for chatting. In fact, I try not to use any IM tools with humans. ;-)

reply
it's really unfortunate that telegram doesn't do e2ee, bc it's hands down the best messenger otherwise :(
reply
From what I understand you can have secure chats e2ee ? I like that I can login from multiple devices and continue the conversation. This was always annoying with whatsapp and signal. Worst case is mildly embarrassing stuff leaks.
reply
> From what I understand you can have secure chats e2ee ?

Not with bots, though.

> I like that I can login from multiple devices and continue the conversation

This is also not possible with Telegram E2E, while it is with Signal and WhatsApp.

reply
It does, but only for chats between two specific devices. Multi-device support is one of its best features that you lose with E2E.

Key distribution is just too hard. I think we won't get a messenger for non-tech people that works well with multi-device and E2E basically ever.

reply
whatsapp, facebook messenger, imessage all support multi-device and it's pretty convenient, in fairness to telegram they launched a bit before double ratched was invented, but still, they've had over a decade to switch to it...
reply
WhatsApp doesn't support multi-device. You can't have it installed on two phones at once.
reply
you can (https://faq.whatsapp.com/1046791737425017/?cms_platform=andr...)

they even have it on fb messenger and instagram (though they recently removed e2ee completely from instagram lol)

reply
That's still one device. If you turn the primary phone off, the secondary device stops working. WhatsApp just proxies everything through the primary device, it's like WhatsApp Web.
reply
It used to be like that but not anymore. As siblings suggested you can now use it on up to 4 (I believe) additional devices.
reply
They used to, but that hasn't been true for a few years now.

Now it uses the Signal protocol's native multi-device capabilities, specifically in the "key per device" variant (unlike signal itself, which uses "key per account" if I'm not mistaken).

reply
This is not true, even if the primary phone is offline you can send messages via secondary device, even whatsapp web

It’s not proxied via primary, otherwise it wouldn’t work if primary were offline

reply
> It’s not proxied via primary, otherwise it wouldn’t work if primary were offline

That is correct, it doesn't work.

reply
Please stop spreading misinformation that can trivially be disproved with five minutes of effort.
reply
I just tried it. Did you?
reply
> You can now use the same WhatsApp account on multiple devices at the same time, using your primary phone to link up to four devices. You’ll need to log in to WhatsApp on your primary phone every 14 days to keep linked devices connected to your WhatsApp account.

ref: https://faq.whatsapp.com/1317564962315842/?cms_platform=ipho...

> Use WhatsApp on your computer even when your phone is off.

ref: https://faq.whatsapp.com/378279804439436/?helpref=faq_conten...

reply
Yes, and it works, as it has for the past few years.
reply
So I don't need my primary device any more? I can just shut that phone down forever?
reply
No, I think you need it to be online once every 30 days or so. That's a much weaker requirement than what you were disputing, though.
reply
oh, i see, is it the same for facebook messenger and instagram, imessage, etc?
reply
Messenger seems to be properly multi-device, but you pay for this by some PIN code bullshit (maybe they removed that, I haven't seen a popup about this for over a year now?) and having to sync chat history in the background, through a process that is, of course, broken and unreliable.

I'm actually still jaded about this. Messenger worked fine before they broke it by introducing E2EE; it took years for them to fix the problems this caused (at least the ones that were immediately user-perceptible).

reply
yeah messenger still has the pin code thingy, i'm curious why they do it at all that way, can't you just have your keys on fb servers encrypted with another set of keys derived from your password, which is much stronger than a 4-6 digit key?
reply
It's still broken if you're like me and you clear cookies

"Let's take people's years-long history between each other and just utterly break it. Why? 'privacy'" but they've never cared about it, they're opportunistic fucks. It's Zuckerberg's company to do with it "as he wishes" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16770818

reply
I don't know, I don't use those. It is for Signal, I don't think so for Instagram, since I don't think that encrypts end to end.
reply
It's not true for Signal either. Why don't you try it for yourself instead of spreading outdated (at best) information? Signal supports native multi-device capabilities without relaying everything through the "primary" device.
reply
It's called iMessage. It's possible, Telegram just doesn't care. All their differentiating features (large groups, channels, device sync) is directly enabled by the lack of encryption.
reply
they do have encryption, just not e2ee, and in fairness to them, it doesn't make sense to have e2ee on a channel or a group with 100k ppl in it, also device sync is possible with e2ee, it's just a slower
reply
you can have large groups and device sync WITH e2ee, see Matrix.
reply
What are you talking about? WhatsApp, iMessage, and Signal all have multi-device support and are E2E encrypted, just to name a few very popular options.
reply
> I just use telegram.

And how do you just get everyone you want to speak to use telegram?

reply
Don't worry, it'll auto-spam all of your contacts when you sign up to take care of that.
reply
Live in a country like Ukraine where everyone uses Telegram
reply
deleted
reply
Be careful though - telegram is heavily compromised.

e.g. their backend just 2 days ago (and since at least start of the year) was replacing referral links to amex (and i bet many other banks etc) with custom referral codes from russian guys (so when I sent my friend my referral link - it showed another referral link in out chat history on both ends). and their security team says its all good.

so unless you are using it for useless info - better use something else.

reply
Was this on a desktop? I'd think it's far more likely malware or a browser extension is hijacking your clipboard
reply
please provide a proof. if this is the case, then telegram is not to be trusted. but it needs to be proven. otherwise a lot of people trust their business and personal data to telegram.
reply
Do you have a proof?
reply
What even is this claim? Telegram is compromised? Some telegram bot/group got compromised?

Is there any proof of the global telegram issue related to amex links? Sounds like BS

reply
Are you using any custom telegram client?
reply
i say cap
reply