no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
38 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
[–] 208 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Of course. Can't train the LLM if they can't read them.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    And then they will be able to finally replicate that black mirror episode where someone is paying a subscription to chat with a LLM trained on the chats of the deceased partner

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 110 points 7 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 61 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    The shocking thing was that they implemented it in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 55 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    You cannot convince me that it was true end to end encryption. They had an eye in every chat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago

    I wouldn't try to LOL

    But there is valid reasoning for it. The metadata is equally as valuable as the actual content. That's why WhatsApp is so profitable. If more people are using it then it could be seen as worth the tradeoff.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago*

    My guess is that they implemented e2ee (or at least they claimed to do it) so people wouldn't be as likely to switch to actually secure messaging platforms. "See here, pleb, our systems are very secure too. You don't want to switch to Signal, and your friends are all here anyhow".

    Now they just don't give a shit anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 101 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    I always laugh when I hear about meta's end to end encryption because it isn't remotely true in the sense that people would care about from a privacy standpoint. I know it is the case for messenger, I have not confirmed for other meta services, but in messenger the messages are encrypted in the way you would expect with the one big caveat being that meta stores your private keys on their servers. Iiirc meta explained that it is still e2e because they don't unencrypt it which I find hilarious.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    My understanding is that Whatsapp is "real" e2e and it's based on signal protocol. That app is the main IM in many countries so they'll probably won't mess too much with it

    I didn't really expect Instagram or messenger to be really encrypted

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 53 points 7 months ago

    Using any meta’s service is privacy nightmare.

  • source
  • [–] 38 points 7 months ago

    How is it surprising that one of the companies that is pushing to force Internet ID laws through state legislatures is removing encryption from their chats?

  • source
  • [–] 31 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    How could they target ads if they can’t read all your private chats?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago

    Metadata. They would still know where you were, for how long, who you talk to, when and from where. Then they combine these info. ex: you call your pop and mom, théir fridge broke down, and you start receiving ads for fridges. Was Meta listening?? No: pop and mom hinted the fridge was down (Google search or other), Meta has established your family links a long time ago, and you usually visit them after a longer than usual conversation (as they have an issue and yuu go help). Here: you fridge's ads.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 59 points 7 months ago

    a surprising move

    Was it, though?

  • source
  • [+] 21 points 7 months ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 17 points 7 months ago

    im guessing messenger and potentially whatsapp are next

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Does anyone know if they're unencrypting chats that already happened? Like my chat history? If so that's fucked up

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago

    They could always do that, and basically anything you can read on your phone, they can access if they need.

    Encryption is a math thing: generate a pair of keys: one te encde, one to decode. I broadcast the one to encode ("public key"), and the whole world is tu use it to send me encrypted messages. I keep the decoding ("private key") only for myself.

    In client to erver encryption, we exchange keys with the server through which go all the comms: it decodes my messages and re-encodes them for my contact.
    In e2e, the key exchange is between contacts: the server does not have the private keys.
    In Meta, the proprietary app can send your private key to the server and then they know what you wrote. You have no way to know it doesn't do so!

    Opensource audited software is the only way to make sure.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    If they can, then it was never e2e encrypted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago

    Well e2e encryption is never private for the entity contrilling the endpoint. Instagram could push an update which decrypts and uploads your past chat history. Of course they’d only do it for your benefit so you don’t lose any data /s

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago

    Nothing about this is surprising to those paying attention.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago
    [–] 7 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Not even WhatsApp has e2e anymore less alone that dumpster

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago*

    Yeah cause of this trial thats been going on https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/24/tech/meta-new-mexico-trial-jury-deliberation

    And because of this trial, instagram will remove end-to-end encryption and add age-verification

    The New Mexico case also raised concerns that allowing teens to use end-to-end encryption on Instagram chats — a privacy measure that blocks anyone other than sender and receiver from viewing a conversation — could make it harder for law enforcement to catch predators. Midway through trial, Meta said it would stop supporting end-to-end-encrypted messaging on Instagram later this year.

    Regarding the encryption decision, a Meta spokesperson told CNN that, “very few people were opting in to end-to-end encrypted messaging in DMs, so we’re removing this option from Instagram in the coming months. Anyone who wants to keep messaging with end-to-end encryption can easily do that on WhatsApp.”

    -- https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/24/tech/meta-new-mexico-trial-jury-deliberation

    In May, Judge Bryan Biedscheid is slated to hold a trial without a jury on the state's claims that Meta created a public nuisance that harmed state residents' health and safety. The state will ask Biedscheid to direct Meta to make changes to its platforms, including adding effective age verification and removing predators, it said Tuesday.

    -- https://www.msn.com/en-us/crime/general/meta-ordered-to-pay-375-million-in-new-mexico-trial-over-child-exploitation-user-safety-claims/ar-AA1ZkHhq

  • source
  • 4 comments in c/privacy@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 10 points 7 months ago

    This implies that they actually had e2ee in the first place.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I never really got the appeal of Instagram chats. It's just another channel you have to deal with. Just link grams in your chat app of choice instead.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments