this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2025
1107 points (98.9% liked)
Programmer Humor
27264 readers
768 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Both are quite secure but neither of them stop an idiot on one end or the other from sharing the contents with the public.
I always find it funny how many people fail to understand the "end to end" part of end to end encryption.
If your endpoint isn't secure then the messages aren't.
whatsapp is closed source and meta owned. i think it's incredibly foolish to trust that it has no backdoors built in.
That's not how encryption works. But you're not wrong about it being owned by meta being a problem. There's more info in a message than just the contents.
you say that but they're already thinking a step ahead and assuming meta left a backdoor or CVE at the behest of 3-letter agencies.
What's facebook's business plan? Right, surveillance capitalism.
IIRC whatsapp’s automatic backups are stored in cloud and unencrypted by default. So it takes only one person in the group chat who has backups enabled (pop up reminds periodically if not) and no password is set (not required, takes effort and will to set) to leak everyone’s messages.
I assume no encryption is safe from three letter gangs, at this point I'm only concerned with keeping grubby corporate fingers at bay.
Isn’t that true for any communications tool?