[HN Gopher] WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability
___________________________________________________________________
WhatsApp Messaging Interoperability
Author : namanaggarwal
Score : 97 points
Date : 2024-03-07 20:02 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (developers.facebook.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (developers.facebook.com)
| brink wrote:
| Why do all Meta websites intentionally break the back button? It
| makes me irrationally angry every time I visit facebook or
| instagram for how disrespectful it is, it's like it springs a
| trap where I'm not allowed to leave in the browser tab I arrived
| in.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| I find any site that does this to be user hostile and minimize
| my time spent there.
| layer8 wrote:
| > It makes me irrationally angry
|
| That's pretty much the purpose of Facebook? ;)
| BeetleB wrote:
| At least on Firefox, the back button continues to work on this
| site.
| _ink_ wrote:
| A random feature I didn't know for too long is long pressing
| the back button, which opens a menu containig the last few
| locations. Typically that helps with sits who hijack the back
| button. Works also on desktop.
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| Chances they'll make this available in any place where it's not
| required by law? zero? Or have they mentioned it at some point?
| f1refly wrote:
| I'm sure the free market will handle it ;)
| datanut wrote:
| I wonder how desirable and feasible a [matrix] interop would be.
| Arathorn wrote:
| https://element.io/blog/the-eu-digital-markets-act-is-here/
| gives some answers :)
| input_sh wrote:
| > Matthew Hodgson, the cofounder of Matrix, which is building
| an open source standard for encryption and operates the
| messaging app Element, confirms that his company has worked
| with WhatsApp on interoperability in an "experimental" way but
| that he cannot say any more due to signing a nondisclosure
| agreement. In a talk last weekend, Hodgson demonstrated
| "hypothetical" architectures for ways that Matrix could connect
| to the systems of two gatekeepers that don't use the same
| encryption protocols.
|
| https://www.wired.com/story/whatsapp-interoperability-messag...
|
| Matthew also did a Fosdem talk about it about a month ago:
| https://fosdem.org/2024/schedule/event/fosdem-2024-3345-open...
| Razengan wrote:
| There's something really appalling that I discovered lately and I
| can't believe there isn't enough uproar about it. Every attempt
| to talk about this gets ignored or buried (maybe by people who
| want this ""feature"" to be kept quiet) so I will take every
| opportunity on existing discussions about Facebook to bring it
| up:
|
| Facebook (and TikTok) store tracking data on iOS that the user
| CANNOT SEE and CANNOT DELETE:
|
| * It shows my previous account even after I delete the app.
|
| * Clearing Safari's cache does not work.
|
| * Disabling iCloud Drive and iCloud Keychain does not work.
|
| * Even completely signing out of iCloud does not work!
|
| * On a Mac in the Terminal, you can go to ~/Library/Mobile
| Documents and "ls -al" to see hidden folders like
| "iCloud~com~Facebook~Messenger" that you cannot otherwise view or
| delete.
|
| * Someone mentioned that even RESTORING an iCloud BACKUP will
| resurrect these "eternal cookies"!!
|
| ----
|
| WHERE do they store this data?
|
| WHY can't the user see this data?
|
| WHY can't the user delete this data without going through the
| app?
|
| WHAT ELSE do apps store on our devices that we aren't even aware
| of? (This is just what we can _see:_ The list of saved accounts
| for "quick login")
|
| HOW MANY other apps are secretly doing this?
|
| WHY does Apple, parading around as a pompous paragon of privacy,
| even allow this in the first place??
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| This is nuts. There should be a grand total of zero files on my
| personal computing device that I cannot remove (no matter the
| consequences).
| redeeman wrote:
| then you have chosen the wrong platform. Just be grateful
| that the mighty apple even deems you worthy of having files
| Razengan wrote:
| Android's security was way worse for years. How long did
| they even take before having granular permissions or a
| Privacy Report, if they do now at all?
| threeseed wrote:
| You can remove every file on your Mac.
|
| And there are no eternal tracking cookies for Safari even
| first party ones are deleted every week.
| ants_everywhere wrote:
| This seems fundamentally at odds with Apple's philosophy that
| they're providing you a rented appliance they control and
| which you have temporary access to.
|
| I'm sure you can remove most and/or all Mac OS files, but
| they're increasingly using trusted computing and even
| designing their own chips to increase the control they have
| over the devices (and correspondingly limit user control).
|
| They sell this as a security feature these days, but the
| appliance model predates that and security is kind of just
| along for the ride.
|
| I'm glad to see that people feel strongly that they should
| have control over the files on their system. I'd like to see
| that help move us toward users having full control over their
| computers.
| darklion wrote:
| > WHY does Apple, parading around as a pompous paragon of
| privacy, even allow this crap?
|
| Good alliteration.
|
| Apple doesn't _enforce_ what the app does with app data. Apple
| makes sure that if the app uses a platform API that is
| sensitive, it gets your opt-in (or prohibits the use of the API
| altogether). Apple makes sure that the app publishes a privacy
| nutrition label. But what the app does inside with whatever
| data you choose to give it, that's up to the app.
|
| If you voluntarily _choose_ to give data to the app, what the
| app does with it is your problem. Apple just tries to make sure
| the app can't _take_ data that you haven't chosen to give it.
| Razengan wrote:
| There is no indication whatsoever that an app will leave
| behind an Eternal Cookie on my device, nor am I given a
| chance to prevent it.
| quadhome wrote:
| It's stored in your keychain.
|
| Disabling the iCloud keychain doesn't clear your local copy.
| threeseed wrote:
| Not sure why you are using this thread as technical support.
|
| Or what tracking data you are referring to ie. is it cookies or
| local storage but either way you should maybe speak to Apple
| Support.
|
| Yes iOS apps can store local data and if you're unhappy about
| it then just delete or reinstall the app.
| alexsereno wrote:
| Hey I can shed light on this. It's the iCloud keychain.
| Disabling the keychain doesn't delete existing entries. There
| is no way to modify the keychain on iOS (you can on Mac). Lots
| of apps store sign on data in the keychain for obvious reasons.
|
| It would be really great to have a keychain section in iOS's
| settings, like Keychain Access on Mac. The dev can build in-app
| functionality to delete keys from the keychain, but there's not
| a huge incentive to.
|
| Keychain storage doesn't let FB track you, just store sign on
| info, keys, and the like. It's not able to execute arbitrary
| code, it's an encrypted place to store login info that Apple
| syncs between your devices.
|
| Use them via Safari if you don't want this (then your logins
| are saved & synced in Safaris keychain.)
| irusensei wrote:
| Signal or matrix interop would be great. I use WhatsApp as the
| logistical tool of choice to communicate with my coworkers when
| away from the company but I wish I could uninstall it. Not my
| tribe.
| ydnaclementine wrote:
| Not sure if signal should interopt with data mining software.
| Keep that stuff isolated
| Krasnol wrote:
| They have usernames now.
|
| Using it with a dedicated username for whatsapp contacts
| could be a way.
| crtasm wrote:
| Signal would have to change how they work for that, at
| present it shares your profile name after you've initiated
| a chat using the "username" - very confusing choice of
| wording.
| nottorp wrote:
| What do you mean? You can set a nickname but they'll send
| your phone number to everyone you chat with?
|
| What's the point of nicknames then?
| madeofpalk wrote:
| https://signal.org/blog/phone-number-privacy-usernames/
|
| > _Usernames simply allow you to initiate a connection on
| Signal without sharing your phone number_
|
| > _Starting soon, your phone number will no longer be
| visible to people you chat with on Signal, unless they
| have it in their phone's contacts. You will also be able
| to configure a new privacy setting to limit who can find
| you by your phone number on Signal. And, you'll now be
| able to create an optional username that you can share
| with the people you want to connect with on Signal._
| nottorp wrote:
| > unless they have it in their phone's contacts
|
| Lol. Why should they be allowed to associate my phone
| with my signal handle even then. If i want them to know
| I'll tell them.
|
| > a new privacy setting to limit who can find you by your
| phone number on Signal
|
| Double lol. Limit is not disable.
|
| How about an option to "do not give my phone number to
| anyone, no matter what reason to pass it around you make
| up this week"?
|
| And the obvious next step: do not get my phone number
| period. But that has been discussed before.
| the_gipsy wrote:
| Matrix has WhatsApp interop that works excellent. It somehow
| uses the web client, which I imagine could be replaced by real
| interop.
| laurex wrote:
| There's an interesting philosophical question: if we have a
| fediverse or open source ecosystem for communication that is
| deeply integrated into Big Tech, does that make the fediverse
| stronger, or does it neuter the impact of fediverse as a
| possible "infrastructure-level" competitor of communication and
| information sharing?
| Pannoniae wrote:
| The most hilarious part:
|
| "Partner represents and warrants that it shall not introduce into
| WhatsApp's Systems or Infrastructure, the Sublicensed Encryption
| Software, or otherwise make accessible to WhatsApp any viruses or
| any software licensed under the General Public Licence or any
| similar licence (e.g. GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL),
| GNU General Public License (GPL), GNU Lesser General Public
| License (LGPL)) containing a "copyleft" requirement during
| performance of the Services"
| majke wrote:
| Can a binary even be gpl?
| looofooo0 wrote:
| A binary can be under gpl sure. Type gcc in bash for example
| diego_sandoval wrote:
| Viruses licensed under the MIT or BSD licenses are OK, though.
| organsnyder wrote:
| The lack of punctuation makes that a totally viable
| interpretation.
| quadhome wrote:
| "Any viruses" huh? The semantic gap between engineering and
| legal is real.
| NekkoDroid wrote:
| Would be a shame if someone where to use the EUPL-1.2 just to
| fuck with them :)
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Related:
|
| _Making messaging interoperability with third parties safe for
| users in Europe_
|
| https://engineering.fb.com/2024/03/06/security/whatsapp-mess...
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39614085)
| PandaBear123 wrote:
| > 7.5.1. Partner User Location. Any Partner Users that Partner
| Enlists or provides access to the Interoperable Messaging
| Services must be located and remain in the EEA. Without limiting
| Section 11 (Warranties), Partner represents and warrants that it
| will only (i) Enlist and (ii) enable access to the Interoperable
| Messaging Services by Partner Users that Partner independently
| validates are located in the European Economic Area, (i.e., a
| Partner User must be present within the European Economic Area
| within any consecutive sixty (60) calendar day period). If
| WhatsApp detects or otherwise has reasonable grounds to suspect a
| Partner User Enlisted to receive the Interoperable Messaging
| Services is not located in the European Economic Area or is no
| longer located in the EEA, WhatsApp reserves the right to
| immediately suspend such Partner User(s) from accessing the
| Interoperable Messaging Services, and if multiple violations are
| detected, Partner shall remedy Partner's location validation
| procedures to ensure compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
|
| Looks like interoperability is geo-fenced to Europe only.
| pmontra wrote:
| So what happens when a EU citizens go on vacation in the US? No
| more sharing messages between platforms until they go back
| home?
| kolmogorov wrote:
| this reads as if they can for 60 consecutive days and on day
| 61 they'd be disconnected from interoperable messaging
| jraph wrote:
| And that they are reluctantly complying in bad faith in the
| most hostile way they found. Is this going to fly? Where do
| these 60 days come from for instance? How is it any useful and
| who is going to want to implement such interoperability under
| such terms?
|
| This reads like a lot of words to say Fuck You Europe to me.
|
| Well, feelings are mutual, at least we are on the same page,
| them and me.
| concinds wrote:
| You may dislike it, but EU law only applies in the EU; it
| sounds like full compliance to me, not "bad faith"
| compliance.
|
| Messaging-interoperability is the one aspect of the DMA I
| don't support. These apps are free to download; and if you
| care about security (and use Signal) you'll want to avoid
| cross-service messaging anyway.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| If I a EU citizen (wink wink) and want to communicate with my
| family member living in usa, will this let me or not let me?
| mdasen wrote:
| If you reside within the EEA, yes. However, given the "wink
| wink", the answer might be no.
|
| Meta is requiring that people reside within the EEA, not just
| are someone who is an EU citizen. They're requiring integrating
| services to give them the IP addresses of users and for the
| integrating service to confirm that you're within the EEA at
| least once in any 60 day period. If Meta thinks you're
| violating that as a user, they'll cut you off from the
| integration. If they think the integrating service is just
| violating it, they'll cut off the integrating service.
|
| It looks like Meta might be requiring as much identifying
| information about you as they can get so it will probably be
| relatively easy for Meta to figure out who is cheating.
|
| But if you're not trying to cheat, then yes you'd be able to
| message US WhatsApp users from a non-WhatsApp account in the
| EU.
| advisedwang wrote:
| Wow this shows the DMA might really do some good.
|
| I'm impressed with EU regulation. Standardized chargers, ending
| roaming charges, GDPR, DMA. Definitly worth the side effects
| overall.
| nottorp wrote:
| Is there some loophole to just do custom WhatsApp clients without
| running your own network?
|
| One that never loads images would be lovely.
| pillusmany wrote:
| You literally have an option in WhatsApp do disable loading of
| audio/image/video.
| nottorp wrote:
| Oh yes, it's there, thanks. I wonder when they added it...
|
| Edit: Waaait a bit. I have it on iOS and I have it on some
| laptop where whatsapp desktop is an old version.
|
| I can't find it on my desktop where their desktop app is the
| latest and greatest...
|
| They probably "improved my whatsapp experience".
|
| Edit 2: besides, that just doesn't download the photos, I
| think? They still take half the screen that could be used for
| displaying more text...
| cprecioso wrote:
| I'm using Beeper with its Matrix bridges just fine
| nottorp wrote:
| Wait list? Is that a secret society? Do I need two existing
| members to vouch for me?
| sebtron wrote:
| So any messaging app that wants to implement Whatsapp
| interoperability has to apply for it, pray to get their blessing
| and then sign an NDA.
|
| It is probably a positive change for end users, but far far away
| from the "open up your protocol" I was hoping for.
| shafyy wrote:
| I was also hoping to just be able to build my own messaging app
| and use it to chat with people who have WhatsApp. I guess this
| is a first step, and better than nothing. Let's hope the DMA
| keeps evolving and also closing loop holes.
| tensor wrote:
| If only the DMA also required that users that are not E2E
| encrypted be displayed as such. As a user, it's important to know
| when your chat is actually secure. Competition should not be at
| the expense of security.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-07 23:01 UTC)