Meta have given a update on how they will allow other messaging apps to
communicate with whatsapp/messenger users ...

<https://about.fb.com/news/2024/09/an-update-on-how-were-building-safe-and-secure-third-party-chats-for-users-in-europe/>

Andy Burns wrote on Fri, 6 Sep 2024 21:22:19 +0100 :

> Meta have given a update on how they will allow other messaging apps to
> communicate with whatsapp/messenger users ...
>
> <https://about.fb.com/news/2024/09/an-update-on-how-were-building-safe-and-secure-third-party-chats-for-users-in-europe/>

I use WhatsApp to communicate with the kids in Germany, while I have to use
Google Voice to communicate with their respective German adults.

Given your helpful information above, that means the kids & I will get...
1. Notifications when people try to communicate with me
2. Combined or separate inboxes being my choice
3. Rich-messaging features such as reactions, direct replies,
typing indicators, and read receipts
4. With later inclusion of rich-messaging features such as
the option to create groups and voice & video calling

Is that a good summary of the article's content?

If so, anyone know if that applies to both Android & to iOS?
(it probably does, but Apple has a habit of including useful
things only when and particularly only where they are mandated).

With the above caveat in place that Apple allows interoperability only
after kicking and screaming, and even then, only to the letter of the law
and no more... how does what WhatsApp is doing compare with basic RCS?

On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 21:22:19 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

> Meta have given a update on how they will allow other messaging apps to
> communicate with whatsapp/messenger users ...

I sure hope there will be a choice in Signal so I can block third party
messengers.

--
s|b

s|b wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Meta have given a update on how they will allow other messaging apps to
>> communicate with whatsapp/messenger users ...
>
> I sure hope there will be a choice in Signal so I can block third party
> messengers.
I'm not sure Signal or Telegram want to play, didn't they say they'd
rather GTFO the EU if they were forced to?

Andrew wrote:

> Given your helpful information above, that means the kids & I will get...
> 1. Notifications when people try to communicate with me
> 2. Combined or separate inboxes being my choice
> 3. Rich-messaging features such as reactions, direct replies,
> typing indicators, and read receipts
> 4. With later inclusion of rich-messaging features such as
> the option to create groups and voice & video calling
>
> Is that a good summary of the article's content?

Seems to be, plus there's a choice on the WhatsApp end to enable 3rd
party messengers per service ... not exactly what s|b wants, but might
get it in reciprocal fashion?

> If so, anyone know if that applies to both Android & to iOS?
> (it probably does, but Apple has a habit of including useful
> things only when and particularly only where they are mandated).

Does it apply outside the EU?

On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 21:39:08 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

> I'm not sure Signal or Telegram want to play, didn't they say they'd
> rather GTFO the EU if they were forced to?

I did some searching and Signal indeed stated they won't do it. It seems
the DMA was only meant for Meta (WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger). At
least that's how it seems to me. Signal has a problem with it since Meta
won't let Signal have a look at their encryption while Signal's is open
source.

I also remember the UK wanting to implement something and Signal's
reaction was that they would leave the UK.

But the EU is pushing to create some law, so they can scan messenger
apps, supposedly for "kiddie pr0n", but that's just BS.

--
s|b

On Mon, 09 Sep 2024 20:37:40 +0200, "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 21:39:08 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure Signal or Telegram want to play, didn't they say they'd
>> rather GTFO the EU if they were forced to?
>
>I did some searching and Signal indeed stated they won't do it. It seems
>the DMA was only meant for Meta (WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger). At
>least that's how it seems to me. Signal has a problem with it since Meta
>won't let Signal have a look at their encryption while Signal's is open
>source.

I've been using Signal, but it seems everyone else I know, except my
immediate family, uses WhatsApp.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 14:35:17 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

> I've been using Signal, but it seems everyone else I know, except my
> immediate family, uses WhatsApp.

I was using both, but finally decided to drop WhatsApp. I sent a message
to several people... nobody switched. I don't care. My most important
contacts (mother, sister, a couple of friends) were already using
Signal. Non Signal users can text me through old school SMS.

--
s|b

s|b wrote on Tue, 10 Sep 2024 17:47:18 +0200 :

>> I've been using Signal, but it seems everyone else I know, except my
>> immediate family, uses WhatsApp.
>
> I was using both, but finally decided to drop WhatsApp. I sent a message
> to several people... nobody switched. I don't care. My most important
> contacts (mother, sister, a couple of friends) were already using
> Signal. Non Signal users can text me through old school SMS.

I tried Signal, but nobody else did, whereas everyone is on MMS/SMS here.

Since I'm in the USA where unlimited everything is ubiquitous for a single
price per month, I use "normal" messaging apps (e.g., PulsSMS) for SMS/MMS.

However, I have to keep WhatsApp around, even as I use the separate
non-META WhatsApp dialer to keep my contact list out of META's grubby paws.

As with others, I too would love to drop WhatsApp but everyone I
communicate with in Germany uses it who is young (their elders use POTS).

When/if the major messaging players have interoperability, things will be
better in that anyone should be able to communicate with anyone else with
the basic features of secure communications & large message size.

On 10.09.24 17:47, s|b wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 14:35:17 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>> I've been using Signal, but it seems everyone else I know, except my
>> immediate family, uses WhatsApp.
>
> I was using both, but finally decided to drop WhatsApp. I sent a message
> to several people... nobody switched. I don't care.

That is why nobody switched.

> My most important
> contacts (mother, sister, a couple of friends) were already using
> Signal. Non Signal users can text me through old school SMS.

Did ever someone do up to now? And who cares?

WhatsApp is for housewives and adolescents.

--
"De gustibus non est disputandum."

On 10.09.24 17:58, Andrew wrote:
> s|b wrote on Tue, 10 Sep 2024 17:47:18 +0200 :
>
>>> I've been using Signal, but it seems everyone else I know, except my
>>> immediate family, uses WhatsApp.
>>
>> I was using both, but finally decided to drop WhatsApp. I sent a message
>> to several people... nobody switched. I don't care. My most important
>> contacts (mother, sister, a couple of friends) were already using
>> Signal. Non Signal users can text me through old school SMS.
>
> I tried Signal, but nobody else did, whereas everyone is on MMS/SMS here.
>
> Since I'm in the USA where unlimited everything is ubiquitous for a single
> price per month, I use "normal" messaging apps (e.g., PulsSMS) for SMS/MMS.

No one outside of the USA is using such primitive stuff for private
communication.

--
"De gustibus non est disputandum."

"s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> writes:

> On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 21:39:08 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure Signal or Telegram want to play, didn't they say they'd
>> rather GTFO the EU if they were forced to?
>
> I did some searching and Signal indeed stated they won't do it. It seems
> the DMA was only meant for Meta (WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger). At
> least that's how it seems to me. Signal has a problem with it since Meta
> won't let Signal have a look at their encryption while Signal's is open
> source.
>

I think this is a shame. I am on signal and not on whatsapp. But I know
the vast majority won't shift just because of a small minority. And that
is their choice. If they interoperate then there won't be so much
pressure on people to join or stay on whatsapp. As whatsapp users
already have my telephone number in their contacts, and whatsapp has
access to that, it wouldn't matter much. Or they could use an arbitrary
identifier.

Whatsapp uses the Signal protocol. How did they make open source into
closed source? "The Signal Protocol is licensed under the GNU Affero
General Public License (AGPLv3). This license requires that the complete
source code of the licensed work and any modifications be made available
under the same license."

On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 18:21:31 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote:

> > I was using both, but finally decided to drop WhatsApp. I sent a message
> > to several people... nobody switched. I don't care.
> That is why nobody switched.

They didn't switch because they don't know Signal and they don't want 2
messengers.
> > My most important
> > contacts (mother, sister, a couple of friends) were already using
> > Signal. Non Signal users can text me through old school SMS.
> Did ever someone do up to now? And who cares?

Yes, they did. Some of my contacts have been using SMS since they can't
reach me on WA anymore.

--
s|b

On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 11:15:46 +0100, Richmond wrote:

> Whatsapp uses the Signal protocol. How did they make open source into
> closed source? "The Signal Protocol is licensed under the GNU Affero
> General Public License (AGPLv3). This license requires that the complete
> source code of the licensed work and any modifications be made available
> under the same license."

I don't know the details, but someone explained it like this:

A Signal user sends a message to a WA user. The encryption is:

aZ*2

When it reaches the servers at WA something gets added:

aZ*2[Vy*3]

This way data could be gathered by Meta. Meta doesn't give access to
Signal to check if something like this doesn't happen.

I don't know if I'm explaining correctly, but if Signal doesn't want to
cooperate they must have a damn good reason.

--
s|b

On 11.09.24 18:07, s|b wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 18:21:31 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>
>>> I was using both, but finally decided to drop WhatsApp. I sent a message
>>> to several people... nobody switched. I don't care.
>
>> That is why nobody switched.
>
> They didn't switch because they don't know Signal and they don't want 2
> messengers.

Aren't you important enough for them? Or they not important enough for
you to use WA?

>>> My most important
>>> contacts (mother, sister, a couple of friends) were already using
>>> Signal. Non Signal users can text me through old school SMS.
>
>> Did ever someone do up to now? And who cares?
>
> Yes, they did. Some of my contacts have been using SMS since they can't
> reach me on WA anymore.

As a consequence they use 2 messengers.

What a pile of contradictions!

BTW: I dropped WA years ago as well. I told everybody important to me
and gave them the channels to reach me. In total I operate 5 messengers.
It is so easy. No one should ever have an excuse not to be able to reach me.

--
"De gustibus non est disputandum."

On 11.09.24 18:13, s|b wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 11:15:46 +0100, Richmond wrote:
>
>> Whatsapp uses the Signal protocol. How did they make open source into
>> closed source? "The Signal Protocol is licensed under the GNU Affero
>> General Public License (AGPLv3). This license requires that the complete
>> source code of the licensed work and any modifications be made available
>> under the same license."
>
> I don't know the details, but someone explained it like this:
>
> A Signal user sends a message to a WA user. The encryption is:
>
> aZ*2
>
> When it reaches the servers at WA something gets added:
>
> aZ*2[Vy*3]
>
> This way data could be gathered by Meta. Meta doesn't give access to
> Signal to check if something like this doesn't happen.
>
> I don't know if I'm explaining correctly, but if Signal doesn't want to
> cooperate they must have a damn good reason.

No: Signal has absolutely no intention to break their encryption which
is a condition for interoperability. Would Signal do that I would drop
it immediately. Signal uses an end-to-end-encryption which WA does not
really. Alternative suppliers like Signal, Threema, iMsg or Telegram
would commit immediate suicide if they would follow that route.

--
"De gustibus non est disputandum."

"s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> writes:

> On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 11:15:46 +0100, Richmond wrote:
>
>> Whatsapp uses the Signal protocol. How did they make open source into
>> closed source? "The Signal Protocol is licensed under the GNU Affero
>> General Public License (AGPLv3). This license requires that the complete
>> source code of the licensed work and any modifications be made available
>> under the same license."
>
> I don't know the details, but someone explained it like this:
>
> A Signal user sends a message to a WA user. The encryption is:
>
> aZ*2
>
> When it reaches the servers at WA something gets added:
>
> aZ*2[Vy*3]
>
> This way data could be gathered by Meta. Meta doesn't give access to
> Signal to check if something like this doesn't happen.
>
> I don't know if I'm explaining correctly, but if Signal doesn't want to
> cooperate they must have a damn good reason.

What data do they collect? The FAQ says they use E2EE.

https://faq.whatsapp.com/820124435853543

"Privacy and security is in our DNA, which is why we built end-to-end
encryption into our app. When end-to-end encrypted, your messages,
photos, videos, voice messages, documents, status updates, and calls are
secured from falling into the wrong hands."

Signal used to be able to send SMS messages. I think as long as you know
that a message is not going to be E2EE and you can choose to go ahead it
is OK.

In order to display a message it has to be decrypted, and that's true
for all apps, so at that point an app could collect data.

Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> writes:

> On 11.09.24 18:13, s|b wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 11:15:46 +0100, Richmond wrote:
>>
>>> Whatsapp uses the Signal protocol. How did they make open source
>>> into closed source? "The Signal Protocol is licensed under the GNU
>>> Affero General Public License (AGPLv3). This license requires that
>>> the complete source code of the licensed work and any modifications
>>> be made available under the same license."
>>
>> I don't know the details, but someone explained it like this:
>>
>> A Signal user sends a message to a WA user. The encryption is:
>>
>> aZ*2
>>
>> When it reaches the servers at WA something gets added:
>>
>> aZ*2[Vy*3]
>>
>> This way data could be gathered by Meta. Meta doesn't give access to
>> Signal to check if something like this doesn't happen.
>>
>> I don't know if I'm explaining correctly, but if Signal doesn't want
>> to cooperate they must have a damn good reason.
>
> No: Signal has absolutely no intention to break their encryption which
> is a condition for interoperability. Would Signal do that I would drop
> it immediately. Signal uses an end-to-end-encryption which WA does not
> really. Alternative suppliers like Signal, Threema, iMsg or Telegram
> would commit immediate suicide if they would follow that route.

How do you know android isn't stealing your data?

On 11.09.24 21:41, Richmond wrote:
> Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> writes:
>
>> On 11.09.24 18:13, s|b wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 11:15:46 +0100, Richmond wrote:
>>>
>>>> Whatsapp uses the Signal protocol. How did they make open source
>>>> into closed source? "The Signal Protocol is licensed under the GNU
>>>> Affero General Public License (AGPLv3). This license requires that
>>>> the complete source code of the licensed work and any modifications
>>>> be made available under the same license."
>>>
>>> I don't know the details, but someone explained it like this:
>>>
>>> A Signal user sends a message to a WA user. The encryption is:
>>>
>>> aZ*2
>>>
>>> When it reaches the servers at WA something gets added:
>>>
>>> aZ*2[Vy*3]
>>>
>>> This way data could be gathered by Meta. Meta doesn't give access to
>>> Signal to check if something like this doesn't happen.
>>>
>>> I don't know if I'm explaining correctly, but if Signal doesn't want
>>> to cooperate they must have a damn good reason.
>>
>> No: Signal has absolutely no intention to break their encryption which
>> is a condition for interoperability. Would Signal do that I would drop
>> it immediately. Signal uses an end-to-end-encryption which WA does not
>> really. Alternative suppliers like Signal, Threema, iMsg or Telegram
>> would commit immediate suicide if they would follow that route.
>
> How do you know android isn't stealing your data?

OT.

--
"De gustibus non est disputandum."

"s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> writes:

> On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 18:21:31 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>
>> > I was using both, but finally decided to drop WhatsApp. I sent a message
>> > to several people... nobody switched. I don't care.
>
>> That is why nobody switched.
>
> They didn't switch because they don't know Signal and they don't want 2
> messengers.
>
>> > My most important
>> > contacts (mother, sister, a couple of friends) were already using
>> > Signal. Non Signal users can text me through old school SMS.
>
>> Did ever someone do up to now? And who cares?
>
> Yes, they did. Some of my contacts have been using SMS since they can't
> reach me on WA anymore.

Given that you are communicating via SMS, would it be any worse to
communicate through an interoperability bridge without E2EE?

On 12.09.24 14:11, Richmond wrote:
> "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 18:21:31 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>
>>>> I was using both, but finally decided to drop WhatsApp. I sent a message
>>>> to several people... nobody switched. I don't care.
>>
>>> That is why nobody switched.
>>
>> They didn't switch because they don't know Signal and they don't want 2
>> messengers.
>>
>>>> My most important
>>>> contacts (mother, sister, a couple of friends) were already using
>>>> Signal. Non Signal users can text me through old school SMS.
>>
>>> Did ever someone do up to now? And who cares?
>>
>> Yes, they did. Some of my contacts have been using SMS since they can't
>> reach me on WA anymore.
>
> Given that you are communicating via SMS, would it be any worse to
> communicate through an interoperability bridge without E2EE?

+1

--
"De gustibus non est disputandum."

On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 18:49:51 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote:

> Aren't you important enough for them? Or they not important enough for
> you to use WA?

Wat de boer niet kent, dat eet hij niet.

(What the uneducated person doesn't know, he won't eat.)

They're just afraid of the unknown... and lazy. My mother is alsmost 74.
She's got an iPhone with WA /and/ Signal.
> As a consequence they use 2 messengers.
>
> What a pile of contradictions!

True. But SMS is something they know, it comes with their phone.

> BTW: I dropped WA years ago as well. I told everybody important to me
> and gave them the channels to reach me. In total I operate 5 messengers.
> It is so easy. No one should ever have an excuse not to be able to reach me.

Adding Signal next to WA isn't difficult at all. I send them the URL,
but still they won't install it.

--
s|b

On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 13:11:02 +0100, Richmond wrote:

> Given that you are communicating via SMS, would it be any worse to
> communicate through an interoperability bridge without E2EE?

Come again? I would have to set that up on my end (how?), but also at
their end, right?

--
s|b

On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 20:26:56 +0100, Richmond wrote:

> What data do they collect? The FAQ says they use E2EE.

Sure they do. <eyes to the ceiling>

--
s|b

On 2024-09-14 17:43, s|b wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 18:49:51 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote:

>> BTW: I dropped WA years ago as well. I told everybody important to me
>> and gave them the channels to reach me. In total I operate 5 messengers.
>> It is so easy. No one should ever have an excuse not to be able to reach me.
>
> Adding Signal next to WA isn't difficult at all. I send them the URL,
> but still they won't install it.

I have them all installed (except Threema), but nobody in my circle uses
anything except whatsapp. And some SMS from businesses.

--
Cheers, Carlos.