[HN Gopher] WhatsApp - About multi-device beta
___________________________________________________________________
WhatsApp - About multi-device beta
Author : a2x0
Score : 65 points
Date : 2021-09-28 08:56 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (faq.whatsapp.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (faq.whatsapp.com)
| scrollaway wrote:
| Multi device or not it's still impossible to have a shared /
| imported history between iOS and Android, it's impossible to
| export chat history, etc.
|
| Sure some people don't find their chat history valuable. I do
| though and so do many others, it contains valuable information
| and memories. Is it the end of the world if it disappears? No,
| but it still sucks.
|
| One day we will have a popular open protocol and client for
| instant messaging. One day...
| justshowpost wrote:
| > One day we will have a popular open protocol and client for
| instant messaging. One day...
|
| We have. It's called Matrix.
| cybert00th wrote:
| That last sentiment would be very nice indeed, but I fear this
| is what we'll get instead:
|
| https://xkcd.com/927/
| daptaq wrote:
| XKCD should make a comic about pre-emptively 927'ing any
| suggestion to improve something.
| spicybright wrote:
| It doesn't mean don't bother improving something, just
| don't expect everyone to switch to it.
| upofadown wrote:
| Having hardly anyone switch to a new standard when there
| are existing ones could actually be considered a good
| thing. The problem comes when the new standard is
| promoted, inevitably fails to become dominant and ends up
| making the problem worse.
|
| Note that sometimes new standards are promoted
| specifically to destroy an existing open standard. The
| trick is to push hard for the new standard until it gets
| sort of popular and then back off. Adjust as required to
| keep things balanced.
| scrollaway wrote:
| Closed IM protocols aren't standards so this doesn't really
| apply. There's only three realistic "standards" in instant
| messaging: irc, xmpp and matrix. IRC is essentially dead,
| xmpp is on its last leg and mostly irrelevant, and matrix is
| very promising just not popular enough yet.
| rohithkp wrote:
| Doesn't Apple implement XMPP for iMessage as well?
| zaik wrote:
| > xmpp is on its last leg
|
| Why? Unlike Matrix it's actually an Internet Standard.
| grandpoobah wrote:
| It's had about 20 years to hit the bigtime, I think we
| can safely say it's not going to happen.
| upofadown wrote:
| So what _is_ the bigtime open messaging standard?
| kitkat_new wrote:
| there isn't any.
|
| But if I would have to bet on a standard which could
| become it right now, then it would be Matrix.
|
| It convinces when it comes to adoption, concept, features
| and growth.
| MattJ100 wrote:
| A mere protocol will never "hit the bigtime" without some
| compelling (non-protocol) reason. It's unfortunate that
| businesses choose to build silos time and time again, but
| that's where we are - it's not an issue that can be
| solved at the protocol level.
|
| Should this be fixed (e.g. through regulation), XMPP is
| absolutely a sound choice - given, as you say, its 20
| years of experience, evolution and deployment track
| record.
| kitkat_new wrote:
| honestly, given the current adoption, growth and state of
| the ecosystem, I don't think it is.
|
| In theory, you could achieve with it what Matrix
| achieves, but it would probably be more feasible to start
| from scratch - like Matrix did
|
| That said, I see how it currently has advantages when it
| comes to resource consumption as well as internal
| deployment to centralized services.
| kitkat_new wrote:
| > argument from authority
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
| tapoxi wrote:
| XMPP is widely deployed and it's the backbone of WhatsApp,
| you don't see a lot of servers that openly federate XMPP
| because there's little business incentive to do so.
| scrollaway wrote:
| Xmpp can continue being a server side protocol all you
| want, it doesn't make it a user facing protocol. So in
| terms of federated or at least cross compatible IM
| clients it's irrelevant.
| perryizgr8 wrote:
| > it's impossible to export chat history
|
| There has been a "Chat export" option for years. I even
| exported a chat of mine and ran it through some sentiment
| analysis for fun.
|
| > shared / imported history between iOS and Android
|
| Yeah this is perplexing. Android to android it works fine. The
| moment you throw Ios into the mix it gets complicated.
| toyg wrote:
| Just another day in the walled garden.
| avh02 wrote:
| > There has been a "Chat export" option for years.
|
| Except where they disable it, like in Germany (but haven't
| followed up on that story if it was resolved)
|
| edit: seems to no longer be the case, time to run some
| backups!
| scrollaway wrote:
| My understanding is that WhatsApp uses a different database
| between android and iOS and I guess they never figured out a
| good UX for converting between them. It's shockingly
| ridiculous for something owned by Facebook.
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| > There has been a "Chat export" option for years. I even
| exported a chat of mine and ran it through some sentiment
| analysis for fun.
|
| You've to do it manually for every chat, and it lacks all
| media. From the context of preserving your chat history, it's
| just marginally better than having nothing.
| flas9sd wrote:
| I recently did this (Edit: import) via sqlite for somebody, the
| iOS->Android direction, but with knowledge about both databases
| schema you can go both ways. Whatsapp also has the I->A route
| in beta for some time too?
|
| There are some preconditions, it's not the easiest, but "no 3rd
| party" required so to speak
| louisnow wrote:
| Aside: Moving from Android to iOS is possible using Watoi
| although it is highly convoluted.
|
| https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/307596/364945
| holistio wrote:
| We have (had?) IRC, it was basic but compared to the era it
| thrived in it was way better than what we have today, compared
| to what's possible today.
| red_trumpet wrote:
| I don't know much about IRC, but isn't it about group chats,
| as opposed to instant messaging? Sure, it might be possible
| to have instant messages, but is that possible over server
| boundaries?
| knorker wrote:
| I tried it, but had to opt out again.
|
| 4 devices is not enough, and it changes the end to end key for
| every device change so now i have to meet up and sync that again.
| tiziano88 wrote:
| What is the threat model that checking keys in person solve? I
| suppose something like a nation state attacker performing MITM
| at the point when the keys are exchanged. But it does not
| protect against WhatsApp, right?
| knorker wrote:
| SIM clone, mostly. SS7 security is not so much lacking, as
| missing.
| Heliosmaster wrote:
| There's one thing that I don't understand about checking keys
| in person. Since it's closed source, how do we know that
| WhatsApp is actually doing what they say they do?
|
| You have to trust them that "if the keys are the same in-
| person, then you're safe". But it's completely up to their
| implementation which we have no clue of.
| perryizgr8 wrote:
| You're right. Although if you use any modern smartphone at
| all this is true for every single software you are running.
| Apple's store or Play store might be MITM'ing every single
| app on your phone and you would never know.
| Strom wrote:
| Sure, you have to have some trust. Even if you had access
| to the source, you wouldn't know that the OS on the phone
| does what it claims. Then even if you audit and compile the
| OS from scratch, you also need to audit and compile from
| scratch the compiler. This is a long process, because you
| need to bootstrap the compiler compiling somehow. After all
| that work, you still can't be sure. Because you also need
| to build your own semiconductors. You don't really know
| that your CPU is doing what it claims, or that there isn't
| a secret radio chip embedded into your RAM.
|
| You need to trust a lot of people to have any sanity.
| Adding WhatsApp on top of a pile of hundreds of companies
| isn't that extreme.
| Heliosmaster wrote:
| Yes, i agree with you. Which is why I personally never
| bother checking the codes in person because I just trust
| WhatsApp
| saurik wrote:
| Because at the end of the day it is based on phone
| numbers you have to check those keys even if all of the
| software is secure, because people only rent phone
| numbers and they are even awkwardly easy to steal by
| sweet talking the carrier into letting you do a number
| port.
| theanirudh wrote:
| Another limitation is that you can't pin chats on desktop/web.
| grlass wrote:
| this is possible (use daily, verified again right now).
|
| There's a drop-down menu underneath the last-message received
| timestamp in the list of chats.
| 3ace wrote:
| It's not possible in the beta app
| nindalf wrote:
| 6 days ago - How WhatsApp enables multi-device capability
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28614534)
| perryizgr8 wrote:
| This is a very welcome feature. However I don't get why they did
| not do this from the start? They kept crying "It is absolutely
| impossible because Whatsapp is E2E." And now they just go ahead
| and implemented it? Either they were lying then, or they are
| lying now.
| chewmieser wrote:
| Someone shared this above which should answer your question -
| https://engineering.fb.com/2021/07/14/security/whatsapp-mult...
|
| > To achieve this, we had to rethink WhatsApp's architecture
| and design new systems to enable a standalone multi-device
| experience while preserving privacy and end-to-end encryption.
| aulin wrote:
| It seems new devices are only able to access history up to three
| months before the first access. I'd probably give up e2e for a
| cloud/desktop searchable chat history. Love that I can easily
| lookup old chats in google talk/hangouts from the gmail webapp.
| Saved me plenty of times I needed some important information
| without any backup except vaguely remembering talking about it in
| chat with my partner.
| kitkat_new wrote:
| Element gives you infinite desktop searchable chat history for
| e2ee chats
| aulin wrote:
| it would be great if you could choose an IM platform for its
| features, unfortunately you have to stick with what your
| contacts use
| kevincox wrote:
| Matrix does have great bridging support so it is maybe the
| way out. With 2 bridges I've reduced myself to 2 chat apps
| (Matrix + the occasional SMS) which I am very happy with.
|
| It obviously isn't the final solution, but gives me a
| consistent interface across networks while I slowly grow my
| Matrix-native network.
| rohithkp wrote:
| Did you experience any quirks or problems using the
| bridges for WhatsApp? Are you running a matrix bridge
| instance on a personal cloud instance?
| kevincox wrote:
| I'm not using a WhatsApp bridge so I can't comment on
| that bridge specifically. Few of my contacts are on that
| so I was able to drop it.
|
| I am self-hosting a Facebook bridge and Hangouts/Google
| Chat bridge amd using a hosted Telegram bridge.
| d3nj4l wrote:
| Can't wait for this to land on the iPad. I despise WhatsApp with
| a passion but it's an undeniable reality in large parts of the
| world, including here in India, so I might as well use it where I
| find convenient.
| kace91 wrote:
| Why do you despise it so much?
|
| I use both WhatsApp and telegram and to be honest in daily use
| they might as well be the same app.
|
| Other than the fact that it's owned by Facebook, I don't see
| any issues.
| hairofadog wrote:
| The last time I used it they made it pretty difficult to use
| without giving them access to my address book, which made it
| a nonstarter. It's one thing for me to decide to give up my
| own privacy, another thing to fork over the data of everyone
| I ever met.
| d3nj4l wrote:
| > the fact that it's owned by Facebook
|
| It's a pretty big issue, y'know.
| rahoulb wrote:
| > Other than the fact that it's owned by Facebook, I don't
| see any issues.
|
| That's a pretty big issue for me - whilst the original team
| were in place, I had a degree of trust for them, but since
| their departure (and the stories as to why), I trust it less
| and less.
|
| Unfortunately, for me and everyone I know - it's either
| iMessage or Whatsapp (depending on your choice of phone).
| theshrike79 wrote:
| Telegram has better tools for larger chats (bots, moderation
| etc).
|
| For 1-1 or smaller chats they're mostly interchangeable
| except for Telegram's better support for multiple devices.
| visarga wrote:
| It would be great if WhatsApp group chats would allow a
| participant to mute another participant. I want to hide the
| antivax messages posted by a crazy parent in my kid's
| school group.
| [deleted]
| guardian5x wrote:
| Does Telegram have proper E2E encryption for chats by
| default?
| terrywang wrote:
| Not on by default for 1 to 1 chat but it (Secret Chat) is
| optional, drawback is that the end-to-end encrypted
| conversation stays only on the devices initially it was
| initiated, because the encryption keys stay only on those
| 2 devices.
|
| For Telegram Group Chat - it is not end-to-end encrypted,
| Telegram uses distributed infrastructure approach to
| protected data not covered by End-to-End encryption. I
| wouldn't consider WhatsApp's Group Chat end-to-end
| encrypted.
| kitkat_new wrote:
| no and it is not even available for multi-device and
| group chat
| terrywang wrote:
| It makes sense because you shouldn't want messaging app's
| backend to transfer your device specific private
| encryption key across all your registered devices.
| kitkat_new wrote:
| why shouldn't I?
| theshrike79 wrote:
| Nope, but I come from an IRC background so having
| unencrypted chats is perfectly normal. YMMV.
|
| I've been chatting in unencrypted channels since the mid
| 90's so I don't exactly see E2EE as a hard requirement.
|
| I'll switch my family chat to Signal or whatever as soon
| as I can add my home automation bot in there without some
| weird hacks or custom clients. The current implementation
| is a glorified Curl call for Discord and maybe 20 lines
| of Python for Telegram.
| animanoir wrote:
| Telegram is miles ahead of WhatsApp. They are basically
| copying functions from it, but in a lazy way. Apart from
| being owned by one of the worst corporations created in human
| civilization, WA is a really annoying piece of software,
| inflexible and generally worse than Telegram, which is a joy
| to use.
| sumitgt wrote:
| I'm already able to use it on the iPad.
|
| Just went to web.whatsapp.com and made it a home screen
| shortcut in Safari.
| d3nj4l wrote:
| Does it give you notifications?
| seqastian wrote:
| They only have to make it work as good as the Signal iPad app.
| ggm wrote:
| If only signal put the same functionality into Android
| tablets
| tut-urut-utut wrote:
| Why only tablets? Why not all devices?
|
| For example, I'd like to be able to use Signal on both my
| main phone and my second phone using the main phone number.
| ggm wrote:
| I don't exclude what you want. I want what iPads without
| SIM have.
|
| Second SIM bound to same identity isn't the same as non
| SIM adjunct device support.
| yannoninator wrote:
| doesn't seem to be a difficult challenge for facebook.
| rexfuzzle wrote:
| This is still pretty pointless if you need your phone to log in.
| If your phone is lost then you still can't get to your messages
| unless you logged in previously.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| It's a good improvement over the old situation for day-to-day
| usage, though.
| herbst wrote:
| It's still the very least to even consider WhatsApp a useable
| aim app in 2021
| beardyw wrote:
| > If you don't use your phone for over 14 days, your linked
| devices will become disconnected.
|
| I hope this is just for beta (and I assume they mean use WhatsApp
| on the phone) because otherwise it's just seems like a gotcha.
|
| [Edit] Also this is one of those hateful sites which offers
| "manage your cookies" and all you get is how to clear cookies in
| the browser. That's not the idea.
| lopis wrote:
| That's why I recommend [Cookie
| Autodelete](https://github.com/Cookie-AutoDelete/Cookie-
| AutoDelete) + [I don't care about cookies](https://www.i-dont-
| care-about-cookies.eu/). It auto-accepts all cookie notices and
| then deletes them when I close the tab (or after a few
| seconds/minutes), with the option to add exceptions to sites
| where you actually need cookies.
| beardyw wrote:
| Ah, that's a neat solution. But I was on Android at the time,
| so a bit more tricky. Also building s whitelist would be
| essential. Thinks ... maybe I could mine my bookmarks ...
| kuu wrote:
| Still no tablets. Why is that?
| pmlnr wrote:
| It works just fine on tablets, just get the apk through Aurora,
| apkmirror, or something similar.
| eric__cartman wrote:
| You can sideload the apk and activate it using another phone
| with a valid sim card. Even if it is a feature phone.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-28 23:02 UTC)