End to end encryption is not beneficial to any big tech other than some marketing. Then why are they implementing it? Has anyone figured out any reason behind it?
So they don't have to deal with law enforcement. Law enforcement requests tie up a bunch of resources, while also being bad publicity; E2EE lets them wipe their hands of the problem.
At least until governments start implementing laws like Australia's Assistance and Access law, which compels companies to add back-doors on request.
As with everything that involves user data, it’s much easier to implement something that doesn’t have access to it. Otherwise you run the risk of data breach, FCC fines, government abuses (around the world), and so on.
Sometimes it matters. Also, it doesn't always have to be some malicious thing. Could just be that there's a visionary executive with altruistic intents who convinced a higher-up that it's the right move.
But in the case of Signal, remember that it's a nonprofit. And in the case of whatsapp, it's looking more and more like the case above.
Doesn't even have to be a visionary executive. This is one of the decisions where a senior engineer writing the design doc one way or the other can easily make the difference in how the final product looks like.
Also, besides marketing, reduced compliance costs. Once police etc. realize that you can't provide useful data, they stop asking.
It can't be proved that Whatsapp's implementation wasn't tampered with, however. Both server and client are proprietary. It's easy to claim OpenWhisper was implemented while there was someone looking over their shoulders there.
And when dealing with proprietary software, we can't assume benevolence by default, ever. The most defenseless link in the chain, the end-user, needs do be defended.
askvictor|5 years ago
At least until governments start implementing laws like Australia's Assistance and Access law, which compels companies to add back-doors on request.
baby|5 years ago
cortesoft|5 years ago
eganist|5 years ago
Sometimes it matters. Also, it doesn't always have to be some malicious thing. Could just be that there's a visionary executive with altruistic intents who convinced a higher-up that it's the right move.
But in the case of Signal, remember that it's a nonprofit. And in the case of whatsapp, it's looking more and more like the case above.
tgsovlerkhgsel|5 years ago
Also, besides marketing, reduced compliance costs. Once police etc. realize that you can't provide useful data, they stop asking.
dancemethis|5 years ago
And when dealing with proprietary software, we can't assume benevolence by default, ever. The most defenseless link in the chain, the end-user, needs do be defended.