[HN Gopher] Iran asks its people to delete WhatsApp from their d...
___________________________________________________________________
Iran asks its people to delete WhatsApp from their devices
Author : rdrd
Score : 144 points
Date : 2025-06-17 19:12 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (apnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (apnews.com)
| ranger_danger wrote:
| Anyone have a non-captcha-looped source?
| geor9e wrote:
| It's the Associated Press, so googling the headline will reveal
| hundreds of syndicates. Same for Reuters.
| zeroq wrote:
| Sounds like a psyop article designed to make you feel like
| wanting to keep WhatsApp yourself. xD
| esafak wrote:
| More like a broken clock being right twice a day.
| kelipso wrote:
| You kind of lose that desire after they start hinting that you
| can get droned because you're using whatsapp..
| Lordarminius wrote:
| All the major social media and messaging platforms are
| compromised and serve as tools for surveillance, so the Iranian
| government isn't wrong.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| Source:
| hypeatei wrote:
| FISA, Room 641A, Patriot Act.
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| The Snowden leaks revealed the PRISM program, whereby major
| tech companies like Facebook, Apple etc all collaborate with
| the US government. No reason to believe that's still not in
| place.
| Jackpillar wrote:
| lol "source?" man I really hate you nerds. Idk read a book or
| an article since like 2008 that isn't tech crunch. Keep up so
| we can have adult conversations
| ty6853 wrote:
| Iraq and Gaza was an absolute joke compared to what it would
| take to topple the Iranian militants, militias, and government.
|
| Much of the terrain is similar to Afghanistan. Tribal islamic
| alliances are resilient against loss of central governance.
| There is a massive porous mountainous border to 2+ countries
| that conceivably will look the other way for certain islamic
| militants.
|
| I know everyone wants to gobble down the campaign about
| complete air superiority and toppling of leaders, and that
| WhatsApp may be separating the regime from 52 virgins, but
| realize this is a propaganda campaign. This initial propaganda
| only serves to manufacture consent long enough to buy citizens
| in to blood so they can't back out. We're in the process of
| being tricked.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Iraq and Gaza was an absolute joke compared to what it
| would take to topple the Iranian militants, militias, and
| government_
|
| It wouldn't be a cake walk. But America could topple the
| government in Tehran about as easily as it did in Baghdad or,
| frankly, Kabul. The problem in Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't a
| failure to decapitate the opposing state. It was in filling
| the vacuum that left.
| msgodel wrote:
| Why are we toppling all these foreign governments and
| creating instability that breads terrorism in places that
| otherwise have nothing to do with us?
|
| This seems so exceptionally counter productive.
| fortzi wrote:
| IRGC is known for funding and training militant and
| terrier groups globally. They also call for the
| annihilation of the Big Satan (USA) and the Small Satan
| (Israel). All the while running for The Bomb. I wouldn't
| call the present sutuation stable.
| msgodel wrote:
| Oh no! Mean words!
|
| Anyway we have plenty of people here that hate the US and
| are far more likely to actually create a problem.
|
| Furthermore I'd argue the deficit spending (a very large
| portion of which is defense) is a much more serious
| existential threat.
| greiskul wrote:
| > known for funding and training militant and terrier
| groups globally
|
| So does the US.
|
| > They also call for the annihilation of the Big Satan
| (USA) and the Small Satan (Israel)
|
| You are literally calling for the annihilation of their
| state here.
|
| > All the while running for The Bomb.
|
| Only one country has ever used nuclear weapons in war.
|
| There is definitely a cold war going on between Israel
| and Iran. I'm not sure if it escalating to a hot war
| would be better. The 20th century Cold War had all the
| same things you mentioned, with both sides fighting proxy
| wars, calling for the annihilation of the other side, and
| had atomic weapons. And I think everyone agrees that the
| end of the cold war that we had was definitely better
| than nuclear Armageddon.
|
| And I don't know if the 20th would have been better if
| only the US had atomic weapons. MAD might have saved
| millions of lives in both sides.
| noworriesnate wrote:
| Because 1) America won't allow nations near Israel to be
| successful, it's too much of a threat to our greatest
| ally and 2) war is incredibly profitable.
| gspencley wrote:
| > Why are we toppling all these foreign governments
|
| I don't want to speak to the other foreign governments,
| and I think there is a LOT of room for healthy criticism
| of how the USA handles its foreign policy, past &
| present.
|
| But to answer the question directly with respects to
| Iran, specifically: the leadership has been repeatedly
| chanting "Death To America" for its 45 year history and
| have been actively trying to develop a nuclear weapon
| program. It calls Israel the "Little Satan" and America
| the "Big Satan." A mantra often repeated: "First we come
| for the Saturday people, then we go for the Sunday
| people."
|
| Say what you want about the USA. I'll be the first to
| join you in criticism of many of it's foreign policy
| actions, including the 1953 CIA-backed Iranian coup that
| arguably led to the Islamic revolution in 1979 and got us
| the Iran we have today. And if people want to express
| concern for what evils could fill the vacuum if the
| current regime falls... fair.
|
| But I'm certainly not going to blame any free country for
| responding to an enemy state vowing to destroy it while
| actively trying to develop the means to do so. If there
| is ever any moral justification for going to war - that's
| it. It's defensive. That's arguably the only
| justification for going to war.
|
| Feel free to disagree with me about the threat that Iran
| poses to the western world. Maybe it's all propaganda and
| overstated. You're welcome to that theory. But this is
| the answer to the question: "Why should the USA get
| involved?"
| ty6853 wrote:
| I don't pretend this is an argument at all in towards the
| situation in Iran, so don't quote me as justifying action
| or inaction there in regards to this, but it is
| interesting to take note North Korea actually has dozens
| of real nuclear weapons and the death to America rhetoric
| and all we seem to do is laugh at them. Of course NK has
| no real ability to blow up the US, but they could likely
| nuke or at least obliterate a sizeable piece of ally
| South Korea no problem.
| gspencley wrote:
| That's a very fair point.
|
| I think the difference is that Iran has been actively
| trying to follow through with its threats and this has
| been demonstrated through its actions towards an American
| ally over the past year. This gives reason to believe
| that Iran's threats are both credible and, while a full-
| scale war between Iran and the USA might not fare well
| for Iran ... you don't need to demonstrate that you are
| capable of wiping out a population or winning a war in
| order to represent a credible threat. If only one of
| Iran's missiles manage to land in a densely populated
| area... people die. And that's enough to warrant a
| response IMO.
| dttze wrote:
| > this has been demonstrated through its actions towards
| an American ally over the past year.
|
| And what about that ally's actions towards Iran? Like
| assassinating political and military figures inside the
| country? Which would traditionally be considered an act
| of war. If anything, Iran has been too passive.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| NK isn't paying people to bomb SK every other week.
| chasd00 wrote:
| The artillery aimed at Seoul was equivalent to nuclear
| deterrence. Before North Korea had a nuclear bomb it was
| widely known that any military action against it meant
| the complete destruction of Seoul. The artillery in
| place, armed, and staffed was basically equivalent to
| having nukes so neither the US nor anyone else could stop
| them from pursuing nuclear weapons.
| 1659447091 wrote:
| > Of course NK has no real ability to blow up the US, but
| they could likely nuke or at least obliterate a sizeable
| piece of ally South Korea no problem.
|
| They could hit any number of US bases, they also have
| ICBMs _" estimated to be at least 15,000 km (9,300 mi),
| allows it to reach targets anywhere in the contiguous
| United States."_[0]
|
| " _Kim announced a Five-Year Defense Plan that said the
| country would field a new nuclear-capable submarine,
| develop its tactical nuclear weapons, deploy multiple
| warheads on a single missile, and improve its ICBMs '
| accuracy, among other goals. The plan includes
| development of an ICBM with a range of 15,000 km for
| "preemptive and retaliatory nuclear strike," and ground-
| based and sea-based solid-fueled ICBMs. Some analysts
| predict an increase in missile testing this year in order
| to meet these goals by 2026._" [1]
|
| They are also working with Russia now. " _Russia is
| increasingly supporting North Korea's nuclear status in
| exchange for Pyongyang's support to Moscow's war against
| Ukraine._ "[2]
|
| The threat assessment[2] says about Iran: " _We continue
| to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that
| Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program
| he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built
| on him to do so._ "
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-19
|
| [1] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10472
|
| [2] https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-
| publications/...
| Centigonal wrote:
| > the leadership has been repeatedly chanting "Death To
| America" for its 45 year history
|
| This is a good read:
| https://www.mypersiancorner.com/death-to-america-
| explained-o...
|
| The phrase is ugly, but it's how you say "fuck the US
| government" in a very melodramatic and poetic language
| where the most common way of calling your friend's baby
| cute translates to "let me martyr myself for this child."
| jfengel wrote:
| I am not an expert in the language or the culture, so I'm
| willing to accept that as the truth.
|
| Nonetheless... they've had 45 years to figure out what it
| sounds like to us. Those 45 years started with _actual_
| violence, and has continued with various forms of proxy
| conflict. So I don 't think it's 100% on us to de-
| escalate the situation.
|
| (That said... they had been working on that de-
| escalation, and we're the ones who threw that in the bin
| about a decade ago. So I'd say the burden has shifted
| substantially back in our direction.)
| Buttons840 wrote:
| > have been actively trying to develop a nuclear weapon
| program
|
| The US Director of National Intelligence testified to
| congress a few weeks ago that no US intelligence agency
| believes that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb, and that
| they believed Iran was at least 3 years away from having
| the ability to build a nuclear bomb even if they tried.
|
| What you are saying directly contradicts what US
| intelligence agencies have said.
|
| A couple sources:
| https://jewishinsider.com/2025/03/gabbard-iran-is-not-
| curren... https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-iran-
| nuclear-weapon-2...
| dttze wrote:
| Not to mention the Ayatollah has had a long standing
| fatwa against the procurement of nuclear weapons.
| reillyse wrote:
| The USA created the current Iranian regime by installing
| a puppet and then getting butt hurt when their puppet was
| ousted. A real freedom for us tyranny for you situation.
|
| Then the USA created the Saddam regime in Iraq to fight
| the Iranian regime and that went great.
|
| And now the USA is supporting Israel to terrorize the
| Middle East in their name and with their bombs and that's
| going swimmingly too. Top job everyone.
| msgodel wrote:
| It seems like an infinite pit we throw money and lives
| into only to make things worse.
| figmert wrote:
| Well the nearly $900 billion dollars budget the US
| military has, has to be spent somehow.
| Aloisius wrote:
| What puppet did the US install?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| They're being dramatic. We installed the Shah [EDIT: as
| an autocrat] with the '53 coup [1]. That was our original
| sin.
|
| But the Islamic Republic wasn't an American creation.
| Neither was Saddam's Iraq or the Mujahideen or Al Qaeda.
| We variously facilitated, opposed and ignored these
| elements, mostly the last. Ignoring the Soviet history in
| the region, together with the fact that Iranians aren't
| automatons, but human beings with agency and preferences,
| continues this tradition of American fatalism that
| ignores how complicated (and independent of ourselves)
| these systems are.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%
| C3%A9ta...
| reillyse wrote:
| If describing events that took place is being dramatic ,
| then I guess so?
|
| Imagine if someone installed a puppet king in the USA to
| exploit the resources of the US for their gain, would you
| think that would be dramatic?
|
| As for the Islamic revolution, it was a reaction to being
| colonized and subjugated, and I would argue it's still
| around because the only other option is being a puppet of
| the US.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Imagine if someone installed a puppet king in the USA
| to exploit the resources of the US for their gain_
|
| Literally the colonial governors.
|
| > _it's still around because the only other option is
| being a puppet of the US_
|
| Iran didn't have to become a hardline theocracy, or a
| state sponsor of terror, or a nuclear pariah. The IRGC
| didn't have to be corrupt and overbearing [1].
|
| The tragedy of the present is it still doesn't have to
| be. And while we contributed to the malaise that gave
| rise to the Islamic Republic (and continue to contribute
| to its geopolitical insecurity), it's a step too far to
| say we _caused_ it.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surroun
| ding_th...
| Aloisius wrote:
| Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah of the Imperial State
| of Iran in 1941, succeeding his father after the British
| forced him out.
|
| I'm unsure as to how the US installed him in 1953. He had
| been Shah for 11 years.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah of the Imperial
| State of Iran in 1941_
|
| Sorry, you're correct. We installed him as an _autocrat_
| in '53.
| keybored wrote:
| I like this new trend of defending American Imperialism
| by claiming that the other side doesn't recognize the
| human beingness of the Other.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _new trend of defending American Imperialism by
| claiming that the other side doesn't recognize the human
| beingness of the Other_
|
| It's not defending or supporting but pointing out that
| not every foreign policy choice made on the planet is a
| result of our actions. There is a mixture of culpability,
| credit and thus obligation to fix things.
|
| And I'm not going off on a humanistic arc. The criticism
| is in line with that of Big Man historical models, or
| conspiratorial ones involving all-knowing shadow
| governments. These models are simpler to apply than
| reality, which involves imperfect (and changing) actors
| acting through the fogs of war and history.
| keybored wrote:
| On the one hand you have a country which has nuclear
| weapons with a regional ally that doesn't want to say
| whether it has nuclear weapons or not that has in real
| life couped the other country's government. On the other
| hand you have the country which Israel lies about getting
| nuclear weapons (et tu?) very soon and that says mean
| things about Israel and the West. Conclusion: there is
| "certainly" no blame for responding (invading) that other
| country.
|
| Thank you for the opportunity to engage in healthy
| criticism of rogue states.
| dash2 wrote:
| Can you give an example since 2003?
| toast0 wrote:
| A stable Iran seems to be doing a pretty good job of
| breeding terrorism, too though.
|
| If we're being _extremely_ generous, the goal of regime
| change would be to bring a new stability with economic
| prosperity and inclusion as well as more meaningful
| political inclusion, so as to reduce the amount of
| marginalized population with nothing to loose that are
| easy to recruit for terrorism.
|
| Of course, when the nation building fails or is never
| even tried, it's pretty easy for recruiters to say "look
| around, _they_ destroyed our country (with bombs or
| embargoes or tariffs or resource exploitation or
| offensive media), we have nothing to live for, and it 's
| _their fault_ ; let's make _them_ pay "
|
| I don't think you can stop all terrorism, but if you want
| to put a dent in it, you need to give the broad
| population hope for prosperity, and you need to fulfill
| that hope on the regular.
| reillyse wrote:
| What if we instead we were just responsible for killing
| all of their kids, would that work? I could see that
| working in the US just randomly kill a bunch of peoples
| kids and that would calm everything down.
| platevoltage wrote:
| You've got to be kidding me. The US actively supports and
| runs interference for the biggest terror state in the
| Middle East right now. We are also buddy buddy with
| another country in the Middle East that dismembered one
| of our journalists and provided most of the 9/11 high
| jackers.
| platevoltage wrote:
| looks like I hurt someones fee fees.
| platevoltage wrote:
| I'm willing to bet that the majority of Americans can't
| connect the dots between the Iraq War and the creation of
| ISIS.
| reillyse wrote:
| The only explanation that makes sense to me, is that
| there are some psychopaths in charge of American foreign
| policy and their thinking goes like this.
|
| 1) we want to control oil and oil prices because it's
| crucial to our bank accounts. 2) if the Middle East
| unites we will lose control over oil 3) we must make sure
| they never unite 4) we need to support varying regimes to
| increase instability in the region. If we keep the Middle
| East fighting we can continue to extract oil.
|
| Lots has changed since 50s so one would think this
| strategy would get updated, but it seems it has not.
|
| (Also for the record I think this is abhorrent, but I
| think some people do think like this)
| kibibu wrote:
| Those things didn't seem very easy.
| Lordarminius wrote:
| Baghdad and Kabul had nowhere near the military
| capabilities of the Iranians who can close shipping lanes,
| sink US warships and attack military bases and oil
| installations in the region, in addition to devastating all
| the major Israeli cities. In the chaos that ensues, the
| Chinese and Russians would move in and take advantage. The
| global economy would grind to a halt and America would
| spiral into a depression that would take at least a decade
| to recover from.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| America really can't afford this right now. We spent
| _trillions_ on the last middle east operation.
| noisy_boy wrote:
| Money has never been a problem for America; it can just
| create it as per its needs.
| anadem wrote:
| I don't think our current administration cares what we
| can afford
| krapp wrote:
| We can totally afford it, DOGE deleted a bazillion
| dollars worth of waste, so we have plenty of money to
| burn on another crusade in the Middle East! /s
| platevoltage wrote:
| America can ALWAYS afford war.
| mandevil wrote:
| Afghanistan was in the middle of a semi-active civil war
| when the US joined the fray, and by providing large scale
| air support to Northern Alliance troops on the ground, the
| situation changed abruptly. Iraq involved multiple US
| divisions of troops, which took months to get into position
| to launch a large scale ground invasion. Libya was in the
| middle of a very active civil war when the US started
| Operation Odyssey Dawn(1).
|
| All of those cases involved a whole lot of troops on the
| ground, which is something that I see as notably missing
| from any plans discussed so far. Outside troops invading
| seems like a very bad idea, because Iran's population is
| about that of those other three combined. Operating
| sufficient outside country ground troops to topple the
| existing government would quickly lead to friction between
| civilians and the outside troops, which would almost
| certainly quickly turn into a revolt of some kind, and
| fatally undermine any government they attempted to put in
| place. Also, it would take a very long time for sufficient
| US force to topple the Iranian government to arrive in the
| area, and then either launch a D-Day style opposed
| amphibious assault or operate from one of Iran's neighbors
| with sea access (2). But because there is no preexisting
| Iranian civil war, there is no local source of ground
| troops either.
|
| I don't think we've ever seen a government toppled by
| external air-strikes alone. The general consensus from
| research is that being bombed makes citizens support the
| government more, not weaken their resolve.
|
| 1: It didn't lead to change of government, but Operation
| Allied Force- the NATO bombing of Serbia helped the Kosovo
| Liberation Army achieve their independence- again air-power
| supporting troops on the ground to achieve an aim, not air-
| power alone. What eventually toppled the government of
| Serbia was the Bulldozer Revolution a year later, with no
| outside military force involved.
|
| 2: Your choices are not going to be good ones. Iraq? Turkey
| through Kurdistan? Pakistan?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _All of those cases involved a whole lot of troops on
| the ground, which is something that I see as notably
| missing from any plans discussed so far_
|
| Oh absolutely. I compared it to Kabul and Baghdad (and
| not Libya) for a reason. There is _not_ a mobilised
| resistance in Iran.
|
| The lack of boots-on-the-ground plans is why I don't see
| us teetering towards Iraq 2.0, but instead the U.S.
| eventually using bunker busters at Fordo and calling it a
| day. (To the extent we're seeing the right recipe
| "liberation" rhetoric, it's in respect of domestically
| deploying the military.)
| nine_k wrote:
| The thing is that the population of Iran is not being
| bombed, except a few high-ranking military personnel.
| It's the nuclear facilities, air defense sites, and some
| electrical power facilities that have been bombed.
|
| A number of meetings / manifestations of expatriate
| Iranians happened around the world, _supporting_ the
| Israeli actions. The current regime earned no love from
| most of the population, it seems; massive anti-government
| protests happened in Iran for last few years, sometimes
| lasting for months.
|
| If there is no civil war and no actual troops on the
| ground, the regime may still be unstable enough, its
| pillars like IRGC being paper tigers, and willing to
| defect. It can still fall. An example: the Soviet regime
| fell in 1991 within a week, basically without any war,
| and the USSR split into its formal constituent republics,
| most of which stayed peaceful since then. Another
| example: the Portuguese regime fell within a week in
| 1974, with zero shots fired.
| mandevil wrote:
| Governments do fall to internal revolt/collapse
| regularly. I mean, Iran has done so within the memory of
| most of its senior leadership! They understand this much
| better than I do- Khamenei himself played a major role in
| toppling the Shah. Just generally that doesn't happen
| while being attacked by other countries air-power, which
| as a general rule makes populations support their
| governments rather than start marching in the streets
| against them.
|
| Thanks to historians, we can understand things like the
| collapse of the USSR better (my favorite English language
| book- I am sadly monolingual- would be Plokhy's _The Last
| Empire_) and see the personal and impersonal forces that
| ended up tearing the country apart, and doubtless some of
| those are present in Iran right now. But I personally
| would not bet on these strikes helping to topple the
| existing government.
| v5v3 wrote:
| Iraq and Afghanistan lacked friends though.
|
| Iranian Regime has strong backing from Brics and others.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Iranian Regime has strong backing from Brics and
| others_
|
| The BRICS meme from a security standpoint is hollower
| than the financial one.
|
| Russia and China have no interest (the former, ability)
| in getting enmeshed in another Anglo-Iranian war. Most of
| the oil travelling through the Strait of Hormuz goes to
| Chinese refineries; they _really_ don't want this to
| escalate. Both would probably make the occupation phase
| painful for Americans. Like we did for the Soviets. And
| the Iranians did for us. But that's again post-regime
| change, the part we've never figured out how to do since
| the Marshall Plan, and not in the toppling of the regime
| bit, which we're ridiculously good at.
|
| The evidence for the above is the current lack of
| military or intelligence support _anyone_ is providing
| Iran.
| keybored wrote:
| > I know everyone wants to gobble down the campaign about
| complete air superiority and toppling of leaders, and that
| WhatsApp may be separating the regime from 52 virgins, but
| realize this is a propaganda campaign. This initial
| propaganda only serves to manufacture consent long enough to
| buy citizens in to blood so they can't back out. We're in the
| process of being tricked.
|
| Everyone wants to gobble down... I.e. here's another invasion
| war but it's our ally this time so it's good actually.
| They're gonna dezanify^W de-islamism Iran.
| seydor wrote:
| Tribal?
| fakedang wrote:
| LoL exactly what I thought. Persians are extremely proud of
| being NOT tribal, unlike their Azeri, Afghani, Turkmeni or
| Tajik neighbours. Most Persians consider themselves proud
| inheritors of the Achaemenid and Sassanid Empires.
| Aloisius wrote:
| There are in fact tribes of Turkmen, Shahsevan, Lurs,
| Qashqai and various Kurds in Iran.
| Buttons840 wrote:
| Iran has their terrorist group proxies throughout the region.
| I think there's some truth to this, although the actions of
| some truly rogue terrorist groups probably get blamed on Iran
| because it's been the zeitgeist for a few decades to find
| reasons to attack Iran.
|
| Whatever the case, the current Iran regime hasn't given
| nuclear material, chemical weapons, or biological weapons to
| these terror groups.
|
| If the current Iran regime is eliminated from afar, with some
| fly-by bombings or whatever, what happens in the chaos that
| follows? Nuclear material and other weapons do not poof out
| of existance when the government that created them falls.
| Which group will control the nuclear material going forward?
| Roll the dice to find out.
| mkoubaa wrote:
| Not wrong, but Meta in particular is uniquely compliant to the
| wishes of state actors.
| rdrd wrote:
| I find the wordsmithery on Meta's statement the most interesting:
|
| "We do not track your *PRECISE* location, we don't keep logs of
| who everyone is messaging and we do not track the *PERSONAL*
| messages people are sending one another," it added. "We do not
| provide *BULK* information to any government."
| Saris wrote:
| If you read around their points, it sounds like they track
| general location, log group messages, and provide specific
| information on request to a government.
| changoplatanero wrote:
| I think group messages would still be considered personal. It
| would only be messages you send to a business or in a group
| with a business that wouldn't be personal.
| cess11 wrote:
| They're under the CLOUD Act, doesn't matter what their
| policies say.
| orthecreedence wrote:
| PRISM too.
| chgs wrote:
| Aren't groups end-end encrypted still, with key exchange
| on joining groups?
| femto wrote:
| Does the WhatsApp program generate and store/mange the
| private keys? If so, it would be possible for the program
| to send private keys on request, effectively backdooring
| the endpoint. Such an arrangement would allow Meta to put
| its hand on it heart and truthfully say it is end-to-end
| encrypted (on the network), whilst still providing a way
| around it.
| mgraczyk wrote:
| And they are legally required to do this in most places
| luis8 wrote:
| I don't know why you are being downvoted.
|
| https://transparency.meta.com/reports/government-data-
| reques...
|
| They can't see your messages but then can give ips or
| accounts that can be inferred to be related given the info
| meta has access to
| bboygravity wrote:
| "'specific information request to government" == fully
| automated requests for literally everything all the time.
| perihelions wrote:
| Meta can also just lie about it. If they were secretly
| granting backdoor root access to some NSA spooks, like
| Microsoft did with PRISM or AT&T did with 641A, most likely
| no one would find out, so, there'd be zero actual downside to
| simply lying.
| EGreg wrote:
| They usually just do a mea culpa:
|
| Camera: https://www.bitdefender.com/en-
| us/blog/hotforsecurity/facebo...
|
| Audio: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41424016
|
| Conversations: https://www.vice.com/en/article/facebook-
| said-it-wasnt-liste...
|
| Mass surveillance: https://thehill.com/video/facebook-
| spying-on-users-new-repor...
|
| Across the web: https://www.wired.com/story/ways-facebook-
| tracks-you-limit-i...
|
| Beacon: https://www.wired.com/2007/12/facebook-ceo-
| apologizes-lets-u...
|
| Apps:
| https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-
| analy...
|
| People who aren't even on facebook:
| https://www.vox.com/2018/4/20/17254312/facebook-shadow-
| profi...
|
| Others do it too, e.g. Amazon:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-10/is-
| anyone...
|
| But Facebook has always been on a whole other level
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/17/facebook
| -...
| bdangubic wrote:
| I will never understand how anyone in their right mind
| can use _any_ product owned by Meta...
| NitpickLawyer wrote:
| They don't need meta's cooperation for this, they can burn one
| of their 0-click 0-day exploits and target everyone they need
| to.
| edm0nd wrote:
| Additionally the NSA has all Meta and WhatsApp servers
| directly tapped and can just harvest data, oops i mean 'meta
| data', that way. Then just pass that info to Israel when
| their internal systems get an alert on good intel.
| ALLTaken wrote:
| Wow that is next level WORD SMITHERY!!
|
| Zuck dribbled and 3D Chessed the Law
|
| META DATA. Literally they did say truthfully they "only"
| read all the Meta Data, which is actually all data of the
| company Meta.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Zuck dribbled and 3D Chessed the Law
|
| Mixed metaphors aside, you can't cheat the law by naming
| yourself something.
|
| Well, you can try, but the courts take a dim view of it.
| lowwave wrote:
| > Then just pass that info to Israel when their internal
| systems get an alert on good intel.
|
| And on top of that if you want make any money with company
| like X, you need to send your biometrics to some company in
| Israel. What is this Israel and surveillance capitalism? Or
| has this always being the case, and I am just now start to
| realizing it.
| msgodel wrote:
| I wonder if the people of Iraq have an intuitive understanding
| of just how much more useful the information Facebook does
| track is like we do.
| dash2 wrote:
| This, also "logs of who EVERYONE is messaging"
| imjonse wrote:
| "we don't keep logs of who _EVERYONE_ is messaging "
|
| just selected people then?
| netsharc wrote:
| "We don't log whom Zuck is messaging, and therefore the
| statement 'we don't keep logs of who[m] everyone is
| messaging' is mathematically true!"
| beejiu wrote:
| Yep, they confirm it here:
| https://faq.whatsapp.com/444002211197967/?locale=en_US
|
| "This may include information about how some users interact
| with others on our service."
| ben_w wrote:
| > we don't keep logs of who everyone is messaging
|
| Surely they must, how else are the messages... you know...
| available when you use the app?
| abeppu wrote:
| I'm not saying I believe their statement, but in principle
| they could be storing messages indexed by recipient and have
| the sender id be part of the encrypted content? Then you can
| drop messages in each user's inbox as they arrive, from which
| the user's app can read, but not have stored enough
| information to retroactively query "Show me everyone Alice
| has talked to"?
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| "We" don't but these other guys with logins do.
| beejiu wrote:
| Re: "we don't keep logs of who everyone is messaging"
|
| From https://faq.whatsapp.com/444002211197967/?locale=en_US:
|
| > In the ordinary course of providing our service, WhatsApp
| does not store messages once they are delivered or transaction
| logs of such delivered messages. Undelivered messages are
| deleted from our servers after 30 days. As stated in the
| WhatsApp Privacy Policy, we may collect, use, preserve, and
| share user information if we have a good-faith belief that it
| is reasonably necessary to (a) keep our users safe, (b) detect,
| investigate, and prevent illegal activity, (c) respond to legal
| process, or to government requests, (d) enforce our Terms and
| policies. This may include information about how some users
| interact with others on our service. We also offer end-to-end
| encryption for our services, which is always activated. End-to-
| end encryption means that messages are encrypted to protect
| against WhatsApp and third parties from reading them.
| Additional information about WhatsApp's security can be found
| here.
|
| Note specifically "information about how some users interact
| with others on our service", which contradicts their claim they
| don't keep logs of which people are messaging each other.
| dataflow wrote:
| Aren't push notifications logged and used for getting people's
| data? This was in the news over a year ago:
| https://www.wired.com/story/apple-google-push-notification-s...
| bravoetch wrote:
| Anyone in Iran that can comment on this? What are citizens there
| thinking about WhatsApp?
| cess11 wrote:
| I don't know but they have local alternatives, the iranians
| have a bridge protocol that federates several services:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_Exchange_Bus
| demarq wrote:
| I'm guessing there's no encryption?
| cess11 wrote:
| If you want actual security, don't use a phone and run your
| own server, likely Matrix.
| yuvalr1 wrote:
| Security strength is not a binary measure, there are many
| levels of security between "no encryption at all" to "run
| your own server".
| MoonGhost wrote:
| Or endnode in Tor. Not sure it's secure enough against US
| which operates it.
| hexomancer wrote:
| Iranian here. Most Iranians use Telegram or Whatsapp, both of
| which are blocked right now and can only be used using VPNs
| (they have been blocked for years, though whatsapp was
| unblocked a few months ago, but it is blocked again after the
| Israel attack). I don't think many Iranians believe, or care
| about what the regime says, though there is a small minority of
| regime supporters that might, but they probably were not using
| whatsapp to begin with.
|
| Though I must say, the regime itself seems to really believe
| this, for example there was some news that high-ranking
| officials are now banned from using electronic devices that
| connect to the internet like mobile phones.
| dash2 wrote:
| Do you think it's likely the regime will fall?
| hexomancer wrote:
| I have no idea but I sure hope so.
| MoonGhost wrote:
| Will this result in bloody civil war like in Iraq and
| minimal dysfunctional central government after?
| hexomancer wrote:
| What's the alternative? Live under the delusional islamic
| theocratic dictatorship forever? If you think the islamic
| republic can be replaced through peaceful protests you
| have another thing coming, they have already killed
| thousands of protestors and they have no problem killing
| because they actually believe they are doing god's work
| and the protestors are infidels that deserve to die.
|
| I take my chances for a probable dysfunctional government
| rather than a definitely dysfunctional one.
| exolymph wrote:
| Best of luck to you, sir. Thank you for sharing your
| perspective.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| I'm hopeful for the Iranian people, thanks for your
| perspective.
| MoonGhost wrote:
| If ayatollah gets nuke regime becomes forever like in
| North Korea. And Israel may suffer first because nuke
| strike is the only chance for Iran right now. Hope they
| don't have it and ayatollah goes to Moscow.
| pphysch wrote:
| That's sadly the goal
| swat535 wrote:
| I'm another Iranian but I'm not actively living in Iran.
|
| I agree with others here that regime really needs to go
| but I of course share your fear of what could happen to
| Iran once the central government is weakened. Currently
| there are multiple tiers of special forces keeepinf
| various groups in check, however once this is gone,
| things could get ugly.
|
| I worry about my family living there, we have been having
| a hard time time reaching there since the attacks started
| and there is no way of telling what is going to happen
| next.
| whatshisface wrote:
| You may know more about this than I do, but what happened
| in Iraq was that the first military governor held
| together the same people who were under Saddam in a semi-
| stable arrangement, but was replaced with someone else
| that had instructions from Washington to conduct "De-
| Ba'athification," for some reason. This lead quickly to
| the collapse of the state due to the persecution of
| everyone who had any authority, and the replacement of
| Iraqi systems with military administration at all levels
| down to the villages as far as it could be maintained,
| which created the ten year war.
|
| In the Iraqi case an event like that (the replacement of
| the first governor) could have been foreseen by comparing
| his focus on stability with the administration's rumored
| focus on the oil supplies, and being willing to believe
| that they did not realize the oil industry requires a lot
| of safety to keep operating. I have no idea how to
| predict the same for the present case because US
| interests in the area are nonexistent, even if you factor
| in rumored interests that wouldn't be directly admitted
| to.
| tguvot wrote:
| in discussion next door (got flagged) people are claiming
| that Iran is peace seeking nation that has amazing
| relationship with it's neighbors and that it amazingly
| geopolitically positioned and that USA should team up
| with current Iranian regime and dump Israel.
|
| What's your take on it ?
| nine_k wrote:
| I suppose you're a city dweller. Do people in more rural
| areas share this sentiment?
| SSLy wrote:
| the diaspora seems to overwhelmingly do so, at least.
| nine_k wrote:
| The diaspora is a very self-filtered subset though. Say,
| the Russian diaspora overwhelmingly opposes the Russia's
| aggression in Ukraine, while the population within Russia
| is mostly indifferent enough, and often supports it.
| (Note that all the Russian troops in Ukraine are not
| taken by military draft, but went to war voluntarily, for
| a generous fee, or in exchange for release from prison.)
| Macha wrote:
| Did they release the conscripts from 2023? Or are you
| assuming they've all died by now?
|
| It's true that new soldiers are not conscripts, but I'd
| assume there's still some survivors from the earlier
| mobilisation and as far as I know once you're in, you're
| in, until death, incapacity or the war ending.
| almosthere wrote:
| Which means one thing: The people will absolutely keep using
| WhatsApp, as they hate their gov.
| twodave wrote:
| WhatsApp is already banned in Iran. It's difficult to see this as
| anything but another attempt by them to gain control over private
| communications involving their own people.
|
| To me, the most interesting thing about this conflict is the
| side-choosing of the other nations, because that reveals what
| kind of games they're playing.
| flyinglizard wrote:
| > the most interesting thing about this conflict is the side-
| choosing of the other nations
|
| Could you elaborate on that? Is anyone behaving out of the
| totally expected?
| MoonGhost wrote:
| Russia and China totally expected, they don't help much.
| Except for Turkey NATO on Israel's side, not surprising. Iraq
| open sky used for airstrikes. Muslim 'allies' probably help
| refueling Israelis planes. The rest of the world doesn't care
| much.
| miloignis wrote:
| The article mentions the ban was lifted late last year:
|
| "It banned WhatsApp and Google Play in 2022 during mass
| protests against the government over the death of a woman held
| by the country's morality police. That ban was lifted late last
| year. ( https://apnews.com/article/iran-social-media-whatsapp-
| google... ) "
| yuvalr1 wrote:
| I'm surprised reading that the Iranian's regime concerns are
| centered on WhatsApp sharing information with Israel. It is much
| more likely that WhatsApp have 0-day vulnerabilities used by the
| Mossad to gain the info than WhatsApp actively sharing it.
| jonplackett wrote:
| They are probably concerned it would be the platform of choice
| to communicate during a revolution that Israel is outspokenly
| trying to foment.
| yuvalr1 wrote:
| > Iran banned WhatsApp and Google Play in 2022 during mass
| protests against the government
|
| So more than fearing Israel, they actually fear the public that
| has an encrypted communication channel that can't be tapped by
| their police. Explains a lot.
| anticodon wrote:
| Russian soldiers participating in SMO reported multiple times
| that after they exchange texts and photos with their relatives
| in WhatsApp, that information ends up in Ukrainian military HQs
| next day. With photos. And later used, for example, to harass
| the relatives of the soldier.
|
| Could be some other mechanism (e.g. Google Drive or some other
| kind of malware), hard to be sure in the world, where since
| 2011 Snowden's revelations, bugs are placed my NSA and CIA
| everywhere, starting from hardware and firmware.
| MoonGhost wrote:
| > Could be some other mechanism
|
| if it was it would be true for telegram as well.
| bartekpacia wrote:
| > Russian soldiers participating in SMO
|
| Russian soldiers participating in the invasion of Ukraine.
| FTFY.
| luckylion wrote:
| Russian soldiers chatting with their family know what
| precisely happens in the Ukrainian military HQ the next day?
| That sounds too crazy to be even remotely true, and too
| convenient a story ("they are harassing your family, go
| murder someone").
| Jotalea wrote:
| There's another country that asked its people to delete WhatsApp
| from their devices too. That's right, I'm talking about
| Venezuela, the country led by Nicolas Maduro, a dictator. This
| immediately raised red flags for me.
| sergiomattei wrote:
| Iran being an authoritarian regime is not new.
| platevoltage wrote:
| Maybe Mark should just open up his pocketbook for Maduro and
| the Iatola like he did for Trump.
| CommanderData wrote:
| There's good reason to believe lots of western apps have back
| doors, if not backdoors served to countries like Iran from app
| stores.
|
| Also car tech and cameras. Literally a wet dream if I worked at a
| three letter agency, real time surveillance of streets which is
| actually extremely difficult normally. Can't think of how many
| times I've wanted a recent picture of a street or house miles
| away, with 360 car cameras you can track people, see changes
| maybe from just minutes ago.
|
| I don't know why these countries don't block or mandate these
| features are completely turned off.
| bevr1337 wrote:
| > There's good reason to believe lots of western apps have back
| doors
|
| A common sentiment in this thread. My gut and practical
| experience both tell me this is true on some level, but how do
| folks distinguish tinfoil hat conspiracy from legitimate
| speculation?
| CommanderData wrote:
| Probably because it's fairly difficult to detect. I doubt the
| code imports backdoor.dll.
|
| The UK now has laws to gag domestic companies and force them
| to implement backdoors.
| krapp wrote:
| >but how do folks distinguish tinfoil hat conspiracy from
| legitimate speculation?
|
| Plausibility and evidence, for which there's plenty in this
| case.
|
| Although it seems less likely to me that Western apps have
| backdoors and more likely that Western law enforcement and
| intelligence have free access to the data, but it's probably
| both.
| bevr1337 wrote:
| > more likely that Western law enforcement and intelligence
| have free access to the data
|
| This I have firsthand experience with and agree. Why invest
| effort when agencies can simply take what they want?
| v5v3 wrote:
| Did you read all the Snowden files?
|
| The NSA, and it's partners, capabilities and the lengths it
| is willing to go to are staggering.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| I'd like to think that it's because WhatsApp is adding ads.
| pier25 wrote:
| Israel doesn't even need Whatsapp to be installed.
|
| The IDF's Unit 8200[1] can probably hack most phones in Iran. And
| if not any of the private companies selling spyware software like
| the NSO Group[2 and 3].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_8200
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSO_Group
|
| [3] https://mepc.org/commentaries/israeli-cyber-companies-
| overvi...
| monero-xmr wrote:
| I had a coworker from Iran and he said every single computer
| just runs the same cracked Windows XP version translated into
| Farsi. Easy to exploit
| pier25 wrote:
| No wonder they got into Natanz with stuxnet.
|
| I recommend the documentary Zero Days from 2016 to anyone
| remotely interested on this.
| anonnon wrote:
| > No wonder they got into Natanz with stuxnet.
|
| While the PCs used to program the PLCs were running XP, the
| 0-day that Stuxnet exploited affected all versions of
| Windows, at least from 2000 onwards, including 2008 and
| Vista.
|
| EDIT: to clarify, the PCs "programmed" the PLCs indirectly,
| in that while they ran the Siemans STEP 7 IDE to design the
| centrifuges' control process, the resulting PLC programs
| were manually transported to the PLCs via USB devices, so
| there were _two_ airgaps: the XP-running PCs airgapped from
| the outside world, and then another airgap between the PCs
| and the PLCs they programmed.
| lordofgibbons wrote:
| > WhatsApp uses end-to-end encryption, meaning a service provider
| in the middle can't read a message.
|
| I wish this meme that "whatsapp is secure because it uses e2e
| encryption" would die.
|
| Why does it matter if the messages are e2e encrypted if the
| messages are managed on the two ends of the channel by a closed
| source binary that does who-knows-what.
|
| The whatsapp app itself sees the clear text message. What it does
| with that information... or what "metadata" it extracts to send
| to their servers.. who knows.
| simpaticoder wrote:
| I think the real reason people don't take supply chain endpoint
| security seriously is that it too quickly regresses to distrust
| of the OS and hardware. At that point you abandon smartphones
| entirely.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| All of this to avoid saying "We'd be fine with you existing
| within your pre-1967 borders."
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Do you see an out for Khamenei _et al_? They can't credibly
| dismantle their nuclear deterrent and expect to keep their
| heads. Israel and America cannot accept it, particularly now
| that its conventional defences have been shown ineffective.
|
| The classic approach, airlifting the Ayatollah to a dacha in
| Moscow while the IRGC saves face and plots a forever path to
| new elections, falls apart when you consider how Iran's
| internal security and geopolitical alignment would need to be
| sculpted in a way that would satisfy the great powers. (Iranian
| crude fuels China's refineries.)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-17 23:00 UTC)