I'm getting pretty confuse with these statements. On 3/18/21, Celejar <cele...@gmail.com> wrote: > (...) > I definitely share your concerns about Facebook (although perhaps not > quite your vehemence), but making **blatantly incorrect** assertions like > the claim that Facebook is one of the ends of WhatsApp's E2E encryption > does not help our cause. (...) > WhatsApp **apparently** has genuine end-to-end encryption, using the > Signal protocol, and neither of the ends is Facebook. > > Of course, it's closed source, so **we can't know for sure what's really > in there**, and I certainly won't use it, but as far as **anyone knows**, it > is **the real deal**:
I added all the '**' to emphasize with precision what I find unacceptable. Taking them as a whole they are simply absurd, in a very rigorous, logic sense. Am I wrong in this, and altogether they conform a serious and reasonable argument? Because as far as I used to know, once you put one foot in closed-source clients territory you're no longer speaking about security but insecurity. The whole discussion becomes irrelevant, you're simply **having faith** - **in Facebook**, to make it even more intense - , which is, by definition, the opposite of reason, science or self-verified-security. Is that I'm completely wrong in this? How can anyone **know** that WA's claimed E2E encryption is **the real deal**? Thanks a lot for any answers. Kind regards.
