this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2026
1052 points (99.6% liked)

Technology

79476 readers
4666 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
[–] Rusty@lemmy.ca 55 points 1 day ago (23 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 38 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 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, if it did anything weird with private keys, everyone would know

[–] Tanoh@lemmy.world -3 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

And Signal is open source so, if it did anything weird with private keys, everyone would know

Well, no. At least not by default as you are running a compiled version of it. Someone could inject code you don't know anything about before compilation that for example leaked your keys.

One way to be more confident no one has, would be to have predictable builds that you can recreate and then compare the file fingerprints. But I do not think that is possible, at least on android, as google holds they signature keys to apps.

[–] pressanykeynow@lemmy.world 13 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Signal has reproducible builds and here's the instruction how to check it on Android https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/blob/main/reproducible-builds/README.md

[–] Tanoh@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

If they have, then good. Wasn't sure it was doable with current google's signing process. Highly unlikely someone hasn't tampered with them then (far easier to target the site displaying the "correct" fingerprint).

However, my original point still stands. Just because it is open source doesn't in itself mean that a bad actor can't tamper with it.

[–] MaggiWuerze@feddit.org 5 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Signal is also on F-Droid, so it should be verifiable

load more comments (20 replies)