all 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 48 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But… But I thought those were private and couldn’t be read by anyone else. /sarcasm

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    So I think, but I'm not sure, this is for group chats. Group chats are only encrypted to/from the server because the server broadcasts the message to each recipient. As the messages are unencrypted on the server, they can feed them to LLMs.

    This is different to Signal. On Signal it's your phone encrypting each copy of the message before sending to each recipient individually.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago*

    I mean you are pressing a button to send them to the AI. It's like clowning on how Signal messages are supposed to be private and can't be read by anyone else, while you yourself are sending a screenshot of the conversation to others. Or inviting a journalist to your secret group chat...

    The dubious part is the claim of privacy in Meta's AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    And I’m sure that summary goes to metas databases to further your profile in their system.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Nobody really needed this feature, this is the actual reason it is being implemented... obviously.

    It is insulting they aren't even trying to hide it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I could see this being handy in a car or in a super busy group chat where you need to know what they've agreed on during the 200 messages you've missed.

    I can see reasons people might use this, though I probably wouldn't myself

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    What that says to me is you are trying to bullshit using a basic tool when you actually need to do the work of onboarding people onto some kind of platform where you can actually coordinate complex things or have conversations between huge groups of people that are still salient to individuals.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yeah good luck getting everyone in whatever friend, hobby etc group to join your platform when all your communication is already happening on WhatsApp

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Which is exactly the intended conditions ventcure capital investment in WhatsApp was intended to do, now they can just keep cashing in over and over again banking on pure inertia from people already knowing how to use WhatsApp badly to do something they could do far better with another tool.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago
    [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Me: Sup

    AI Summary: What is going on my friend?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    encrypted my ass. this is to everyone who dares to think that encryption is worth anything in a closed source app, developed by facebook no less. it is used as a buzzword, no more

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    I will never understand anyone who uses Meta products. How much shit does that company need to do before yalls gtfo? Like fr, why are you using WhatsApp when Signal or a million other messaging systems are available?

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Momentum of where friends and family are.

    It's nice to be able to say "well they're not worth talking to then", but at some point I need to be able to reach my parents so they can babysit my daughter. Or be able to know that family will be in town and expecting me to be available. Or be able to have any way of knowing what life events are happening to my loved ones without having to wait for it to be brought up in casual conversation months later as if I should already know.

    My extended family and friends do a poor job communicating on a good day. If I try to add another hurdle, I'm not the one who wins that fight.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Now that RCS between ios and android is a thing there really is no excuse to use Whatsapp any longer. RCS might still be a bit janky but it does its base job fine to the point that I can really reach anyone I need either thru signal, RCS or as a fallback SMS.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Isn't RCS for the most part using Google services and servers? I don't know if that really is that much better.

    To my knowledge, the original idea to have RCS be operated by the mobile providers is pretty much dead.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    Yes, you're correct.

    But that rollout doesn't make headlines like all the ones from the US government telling people to use encrypted messaging like WhatsApp or Signal. That's what got them to WhatsApp to begin with. FBI tells everyone very loudly to get off standard texting. They jump as a collective to where half of them already are.

    As I've already alluded to: this has precisely zero to do with the technical aspects of security. Ease of use does matter (why pushing to Signal didn't work at the time the FBI spooked everyone), but only a little bit, and is overshadowed by momentum of where people already are.

    I might be able to get my family off WhatsApp with the recent article about it being banned from (I think it was) Congress's phones.

    But again, this isn't a technical problem where you can just point at what's obviously the better choice. There are complications of personal relationships, individual resistance to change, whether or not you're willing to train your family members, etc.

    My grandmother is in her late 80s and it is astonishing that she can even manage WhatsApp to pariticipate in the family group chat. I'm not upending that and causing her the added stress, work, isolation if it fractures the family groip chat, and signing myself up for all that extra work to try and drag people to new platform and hold their hand through the bumps... just so I can be comfortably principled, using the best option, and trying to prevent Meta from getting info about me for a few more years that they likely are getting through other means.

    I'll revisit as the elders age off.

    I care about my privacy, but I've thought long and hard about my specific threat model and what is and isn't important enough for me to make a big deal out of. For me, this is an acceptable sacrifice.

    Doesn't have to be that way for anyone else. Just has to work for me and my life. And it does.


    Ultimately I'm just trying to give reasons why people are still on these platforms. I took the initial comment I responded to at face value. I'm not really looking to debate here, and my opinions don't invalidate anyone else's.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I've tried moving to signal but at most I have about 3 friends that use it with me, it simply not possible to dump it completely and remain in contact with all my friends and family members.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I told my people it's Signal or you're simply not hearing from me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It just means you're excluded from a lot of stuff or just aren't messaged to. Which is a choice but big groups especially are just going to use what most use, they aren't moving to Signal because someone refuses to use something else.

    Would be cool if they were meaningfully interoperable, private and secure. That's the dream

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 29 comments in c/privacy@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 74 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    I know this is not a unique sentiment by any means, but it makes me legitimately angry to think of participating in a conversation where someone else is using this. If you don't want to read my messages why are we even connecting; imagine clicking "summarize" on someone genuinely trying to talk to you. "Sorry, the AI hallucinated that you were going to finish the rest of the assignment tonight." and a year later "Sorry, I forgot all the nuances of who you are as a person because an AI didn't think they were relevant."

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Hardly an AI problem though. Many people talk just to hear themselves talk rather than care to listen. Many will stare at their phone when in a real world conversation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago*

    The underlining issue is that people are being forced to do so much at once they skip whatever they can. We already seen intimacy suffer and AI is another "shortcut" that allows us to do more work and care less about community.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Are you not in any group chats with 50 people trying to organize something? They become a cluster fuck.

    For direct chats, totally agreed. I'd be seriously insulted if you used an ai to talk in a 1:1 conversation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That really seems like a structural problem to me. Break it out into more-focused teams, signify important people whose messages you should pay attention to, or use threads to consolidate topics. If those things aren't being done and there's just 50+ people dumping information then the information can't be deemed important. Adding AI to patch the issue is poor management at best and introducing poisoned information at worst.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago*

    OSX already does this so many will be. I don’t use it when I’m texting something but it helps me follow group chats id usually ignore or if my wife has texted me a bunch of stuff I’ll see a quick summary including ‘make sure to do x’

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago

    How fucking lazy can you get, to not be bothered reading a text?!?

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago

    Still claiming WA messages are e2ee? The MITM is even paraphrasing the content back to you.

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    You’re still using whatsapp? Tsk tsk.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    What’s the alternative(s) you use and enjoy?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I am anecdotal, almost 70. So my data does not really count as I do not do much. I use text for family and Signal for anything else. Quit all the other services pretty much except Lemmy/Piefed have accounts on Bluesky and mastodon but I don’t say anything so far on them. I save my yelling at the clouds for here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Wow, nothing says I love you like letting an AI summarize your spouse's feelings into "vibes: bad"

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The worst part is that I know people that will use this regularly and also know people I'd be tempted to use it with because of their walls of text that I usually ignore.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Would you be more offended by someone using AI to decipher your wall of text then if they ignored you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    I'm not sure which one is worse, either tells me that they didn't bother reading the message. It is hard for me to relate because I try to do my best to not send ted talk to a group chat.

    Maybe I'd rather be ignored if they're not interested.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    ummm no. I don't want Meta to access my chats.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago
    [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    I'm kinda sick of EVERYTHING having it's own "AI", I just hope it's only a passing phase like it was with crypto

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Meta wants a wave of stupids. People will not have the capacity to read a simple message with this shit!

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Do people actually use stuff like this? Like who has ever needed help reading a text message?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    If you need an AI summary to read texts from your friends… Your friend either has the worst case of main character syndrome, or you’re a bad friend for not putting in the effort of reading what they have to say!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    I love that my global settings has a whole section labelled Privacy, but I can't disable this globally for all chats my account joins.

    Instead I have to disable it for each chat individually.

    What awful design WhatsApp (obviously on purpose so I'll forget with new chats).

    Well maybe this is the push that those friends will need to move to Signal...

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    As we say in my home town, "Wankers!". I need to have this WhatsApp BS as its the only way to stay connected with older relatives and work groups. I'm using RethinkDNS on my phone and have blocked as many Meta DNS and network links as I can find online. Exactly none of them show up on my firewall logs! The connections in/ out appear to be via "safe" routes, which if blocked then break wider functionality. To use yet another completely unheard of home town phrases, "Bastards".

  • source
  • 5 comments in c/privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com view that post
    [–] 17 points 1 year ago*

    It uses Meta’s Private Processing technology

    Ooh what's that, is it like homomorphic encryption where they can process your data without seeing the input or output?

    Meta says users can “direct AI to process their requests,” like for AI chat summaries, using Private Processing. If they do, the system won’t “retain access to user messages once the session is complete” so that a potential attacker can’t access them after the fact, according to the company.

    Never mind. It's utter bullshit. It's a pinkie promise that they'll take your data and totally not keep it.

    Mark already told us people who trust him are "dumb fucks"

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    What's the point of this? If AI is summarizing your email/texts, then AI writes a response, then AI on the other end does the same.... aren't we missing the purpose of communication between two people by having AI do it for us? I want to chat with, and email my family and friends, not an AI assistant.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    1 comment in c/pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub view that post
    [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    What’s the point of encrypted messaging if it just shares it with an LLM anyway?

  • source