>"Also, you also don't have evidence of what you think is happening. Then, the difference between us is that I'll only believe it once I have evidence and you believe it without evidence."

Did you READ what I wrote? I never wrote or claimed I had any evidence. I never wrote that I thought they were able to break into messages or that I believed they were.

I wrote that it is POSSIBLE and we CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE because the platform and code is not open (it is closed).

People regularly pay $1000 or more for a single screen flagship. 2 screens is double, $2000. Three screens is triple, $3000. Seems like they are just doing simple math here. Of course, we know the price shouldn't scale that way, but whatever.... if it doesn't sell enough, they will lower the price or discontinue it.

I admit, it sounds neat. But it also looks overly thick and heavy/bulky. I don't need a "super thin" phone, but I also am kinda used to not having a brick. I don't use/obsess over a stupid phone anywhere near enough to spend even $1000 on it, which is why I buy midgrades for $300 to $400. And usually keep them for 5+ years. So $3000 for a phone does seem insane to me.

>"Could youn please define "closed"? As far as I understand, WhatsApp is based on The Signal Protocol."

It can be based on anything they like. But if you are running a binary blob on your phone, you have no idea what the actual code is doing ALL the time. And you certainly don't know what their servers are doing. That is "closed".

>"Also, there are no known remote vulnerabilities to The Signal Protocol (that I'm aware of). The FBI has broken encryption on the protocol but this was done physically. This is unlike the remote access that's described in the article."

The encryption can be rock solid and unbreakable. But if their app will send them the keys if requested in some manner, then you are done.

>"Also, do you have any evidence"

Nope. I have no idea. Like I said, it is unlikely there are any shenanigans going on. But it is plausible.

>"or a conceptual idea of how WhatsApp would have "master keys present at the start"?

Yes, that is easy. Your local machine creates the private key it is going to use and the app transmits that to their servers and it is stored. Or, requested later under certain communication and it is sent at that point. Do you know their code doesn't have that ability? How would you know? Especially if it never does it unless requested in some secret way....

>"Otherwise it would be end-to-middle-to-end encryption, wouldn't it?"

Nope, that would imply it is being decrypted and then re-encrypted in the middle. That doesn't have to happen. It would still have stayed encrypted from one end (sender) to the other end (receiver). The middle can just store the message and decrypt it later, if needed, if they have access to the keys (now or later) or a weakness/backdoor.

>"The lawsuit does not provide any technical details to back up the rather sensational claims."

That is an inherent problem with closed code and closed platforms. They can claim anything they want and there isn't much way we can verify their claims. I admit, this story seems really sensational (a little hard to believe), but it is plausible.

Also, there can be word-trickery here. It is possible things can be claimed to be "end-to-end encrypted" and yet still have ways for the mothership to decrypt anything at will (by having intentional secret holes/weaknesses, by storing your or another key, or a method they can pull the key from your device through their own control over the app, or by having master keys present at the start). I think that would be a misuse of the term "end-to-end encryption", yet term use/definitions mutate all the time. Anyway this can backfire spectacularly if discovered and lead to a lot of legal issues- if they had denied law enforcement/courts access in the past with the excuse that they can't decrypt it and then it is discovered they could.

Or just don't use Snap at all, one of several reasons I run Mint on my machines. And even Mint is, unfortunately, relying on containerized packages for a significant portion of software from Ubuntu repos. But at least Mint provides native packages for all of the important stuff (Firefox, LibeOffice, GIMP, Audacity, VLC, Geeqie, Okular, Thunderbird, Pluma, Guvcview, Kdenlive, Wine, Meld, Claws, etc).

It is likely either LMDE (Linux Mint Debian Edition) or just plain Debian is in my future, though.

>"Simple, don't give TikTok permission to use your phone's location services. Problem solved."

I was wondering that myself. But I have experience with a variety of apps and many will "request" location services and if you don't give it, then the app will simply not work at all (even though there is no reason it should stop working completely). So it really isn't a "request" or "option", it is a requirement. I believe that should be against the "rules" to program an app that way.

>"It's easy to tap "agree" and keep on scrolling through videos on TikTok, so users might not fully understand the extent of changes they are agreeing to with this pop-up. "

99.9% are going to click on agree immediately and start scrolling.

99.9% of those who actually choose to pull up the agreement don't understand it or what actually changed.

So maybe 0.01% of users might be giving informed agreement.

And yes, I just went through one of those on some other software- I was in the 0.1% who tried to read it, and in the 99.9% of those who really didn't understand a lot of it (because it was obscure and in legalese).

>"I'll make you a deal, I'll pay the same rate Elon pays. Done and done."

You forgot to create several companies producing lots of useful things that are in high demand, hire and pay a eighth of a million employees (most for decades), contribute $474 million to charities, and pay many billions in business, payroll, and other taxes.

Musk's wealth is primarily in the form of stock, which is not taxed until sold (and has no actual/real value until sold). In 2021 he paid $12 billion in income tax, alone, when he sold shares of Tesla.

The loophole that the ultra rich use is taking out loans on unrealized assets like stocks. That should be closed.

If you believe that Microsoft follows its own policies and the closed-source code is doing what you tell it to do.

It is highly probably it is, but, in the end, we really don't know 100% for certain. It might forward that stuff to 3-letter agencies without your consent or knowledge. And/or it might have some super-secret back door set of keys.

He is also assuming that

c) a bad actor at Microsoft doesn't disclose the keys without a warrant

d) Microsoft's servers aren't hacked and then the keys are disclosed

And there are probably some other possibilities as well. Just assuming that because you want to protect your data, including from Microsoft, means you are doing something illegal and want to "hide it from the police", is a bad-faith argument.

>"Really, in the states where I've had training being aware of the traffic around you, defensive driving, has been a topic. Multiply that by a factor of hundred if the training is for a motorcycle rather than a car."

^^This. I have been a motorcyclist for decades. *THE* most important thing to know is that, literally, everything is out to kill you. Other vehicles, nature, the road, the weather, yourself, everything. You must drive (and dress) that way, always. It requires a lot of attention and defensiveness if you want to be accident and injury-free. You just assume that nobody can ever see you and everything is far more dangerous than it appears.

One person asked me if it is so stressful and dangerous, why do it? I replied, because for some people, there is a certain enjoyment in overcoming the challenges. One enters a different "mode" where other thoughts and troubles are put on hold while surviving the ride.

>"New Jersey Law Requires E-Bike Drivers To Have License, Insurance"

Is there such a thing as "E Bike Insurance"? Haven't heard of that before. Or are they just trying to classify it as a motorcycle, but not really. And if it is being treated like a motorcycle, shouldn't that also require a MOTORCYCLE license, not just a [car] driver's license?

And oh, estimates are that at least 1 in 7 licensed drivers (and some think it is higher) are driving motor vehicles around without any valid insurance. Making it a law isn't going to force it to happen.

>"Because you "bought the device on credit" rather than "renting the device", so the device is still yours to do with as you please."

Yes and no. Depends on the contract and the way it is worded.

>"The device being locked doesn't take the place of the contract, it's just an extra totally pointless burden on the customer."

The phone company is using the locking as a type of collateral to help assure the customer doesn't just stop paying on their obligation and move that phone, which is not "fully" theirs, to another service or sell it. Apparently that was/is a major problem. Probably because consumers were not smart enough to realize the actual cost of the phone is double or triple what they put as, essentially, a down-payment. Many car sellers do something similar as well, for those with high credit risk- they put a GPS tracker/locker on the vehicle.

For 99+% of people, there is/should be no issue with a phone being locked, unless their intent was, in fact, to try and break their contracts without paying.

I can see both sides of the issue. I do think it is intolerable you should have to ASK to have it unlocked OR wait, once your obligation is complete. That should be automatic.

>"if you purchased a device from Verizon's value brands previously, they would automatically unlock them after 60 days. Now, you have to wait 365 days, request the unlock because it doesn't happen automatically, and also have active service. "

I must be missing something... If you choose to not outright fully buy a phone, but sign an agreement for a heavily discounted/subsidized phone, contingent on having service for X months or whatever, why should Verizon unlock it if the terms are not met? If you want the freedom to do what you want, then fully buy your own unlocked phone, right?

I do agree it should be automatic once the agreement is met, however.