Does anyone know where this is at? I thought WhatsApp were being forced by the EU in 2024 to introduce this under the Digital Markets App? I’m googling, but am finding very little info.
It would be great if we could use Signal to communicate with WhatsApp groups. The sooner I can delete WhatsApp the better.
You must log in or register to comment.
I also am waiting for news on this. I think many users lack of an european view. In Europe Whatsapp is a monopoly for Instant Messaging, look at https://www.statista.com/statistics/1005178/share-population-using-whatsapp-europe/. And you do not break a Monopoly with “remove whatsapp and use only signal”. I only have 1 contact in Signal, two years ago I had 5 contacts. If I remove Whatsapp, I lack of IM. Period.
Signal has E2EE encryption, Signal collects very few metadata. If they collect very few metadata, they have very few metadata to expose to Whatsapp. If Whatsapp forces them to provide more metadata, they could argue and even ask for arbitration with the European Comission.
But the lack of interest to ever consider the interoperalibity seems to me they are not interested in the european market. They do not want to grow in Europe to become the best privacy-respectful IM solution (with users).
I’d rather my Signal not be federated sigh Facebook at all. I’d be fine downloading a secondary Signal-owned app just for Whatsapp contacts (that way I don’t have WhatsApp on my phone), but I do not want my standard Signal traffic routed through Facebook’s data-guzzling, privacy-eroding servers.
Why would your signal to signal data be even sent to WhatsApp? Only the signal to WhatsApp and WhatsApp to signal data would go through meta servers… If that’s not how it’s being designed, it’s a failed feature ofc.
Isn’t the whole point of E2E encryption that it doesn’t matter. And since signal has recently implemented sealed sender. Sending your communication to someone on a Facebook server might actually be more secure.
Now that iPhones have RCS messaging, is something like this still desired? Can’t everyone just use RCS instead (assuming that everyone has a somewhat modern phone/OS that supports RCS). Or am I not seeing something here?
Interesting point. Does that mean iPhones and Android can now have a shared group over imessage/whatever it’s called in Android? Are those messages encrypted?
The EU would like it, given that very few people here use SMS/RCS still.
Well except that RCS is locked up by Google. I don’t believe there are any foss implementations.
Not only that, but there were reports that even Google’s implementation was stealthily turned off on custom ROMs or rooted phones :/
Not even stealthily they just required some device validation bullshit iirc. Basically they require the ROM is signed by a Google certificate. They don’t do that for custom roms even GrapheneOS after the android dev team request they get added multiple times.
I’m on GrapheneOS so RCS isn’t a solution for me.
Ah. I heard that in some cases (maybe earlier on?) they just didn’t deliver the messages without erroring out. Anyway, I wouldn’t be able to use it either because a) not all carriers have it (where I am, only one does) and b) apparently not all manufacturers have it either, especially if we’re talking about cheap Chinese ones which are the majority.
I have no idea, but I’m also interested. Thus said, remember that’s only inside EU. I remember that Meta said they won’t apply this outside EU.
If I understand this document correctly, it would mean that the entire connection somehow gets routed through Meta’s servers. I can fully understand the reluctance of other parties, including Signal, to do that, and I wonder how this is actually compliant with the DMA.
I think that’s only the case for people on a meta client. I would assume for people on a signal client get their requests proxied to meta via a signal server.
You don’t understand. This is not for you, the signal user, to speak with WhatsApp users. This is for you to convince them to swap to signal and keep talking to other WhatsApp users. The more people change, the less information will go through meta. Lowering the barrier to swap apps is great.
To send messages, the third-party providers have to construct message protobuf structures which are then encrypted using the Signal Protocol and then packaged into message stanzas in eXtensible Markup Language (XML).
Meta servers push messages to connected clients over a persistent connection. Third-party servers are responsible for hosting any media files their client applications send to Meta clients (such as image or video files). After receiving a media message, Meta clients will subsequently download the encrypted media from the third-party messaging servers using a Meta proxy service.
This is only for messages sent to WhatsApp, right now you are force to use their app to chat with WhatsApp users, which is worse than the proposal.
Just delete it now. Tell your friends that you’re moving because of all the tech oligarchs that just got handed the keys to the government and the economy. Tell your friends that Signal is run by a 501©3 nonprofit and actually cares about privacy.
I left Meta products in 2010, and it was one of the best decisions I ever made. You deserve not to “be the product” anymore.
Unfortunately this doesn’t actually work. Even if people do try Signal, they see they only have one or two contacts, and they go back to WhatsApp.
So they either keep Signal around and be able to talk to you, or they don’t. They don’t need to stop using WA to use Signal.
If they don’t want to do that, it’d mean that you would have to keep WA around for the one or two contacts you have there (and only there), which is somewhat comparable, actually, if you disregard the “but meta is short for metastasis, actually” bit.
Which one of the two it ends up being is between you and your contacts.
And you should call them whiny, scared little babies for doing so. But I digress.
Other people have succeeded in getting friend/family groups to switch to better E2EE options, so I believe that most people who say it can’t be done haven’t actually tried.
I’ve tried extensively. For years. I was a regular Signal donor, too.
I don’t know where you’re from, but in much of the world, asking someone to use something other than WhatsApp is like saying “stop using email”, it’s an extremely difficult sell.
I got my entire Snapchat gc (15 people) and a little more to switch. The key isn’t dropping an announcement of “hey I’m moving”, you talk to each person individually; starting with the most likely to switch. Then go up the line, share who you’ve already got to join if you’re met with resistance. if you save the most difficult people for last, telling them almost everyone else is already there is usually enough.
If someone along the way has refused to move for the time being, you can revisit them later after you’ve got more people to move. I didn’t 100% nail my judgement of who would and who wouldn’t, but I was able to go back and revisit those who didn’t.
If you can, reach out to people in person; I got a few this way. You have to express that you will not be accessible otherwise and will only be present on signal moving forward. It helps if you have a reputation for following through :3
Likely not everyone is going to move over. I’ve accepted that there’s some people I probably won’t end up talking to ever again. I’ve got my main group over, the ones that actually respect that I want more security (and less clown-show shit that Snapchat has)
Human nature wants to stay put, you have to have some strategy or it won’t work.
Also a lot of people are pissed at Meta for lobbying for TikTok’s ban. Use that with the relevant people, if applicable
This is pretty close to how I did it.
The “one or the other” thing is a fallacy. You have just one, but they’re clearly happy installing stuff like WA - so tell them to install another app. It’s not like they have to switch.
If they subsequently come to realise the value of Signal in time, all the better.
If installing both helped you, then perhaps that’s a good strategy for some. I’m more of a “leave the abusive relationship and cut ties” kind of person, which is why I don’t advocate for both at the same time. People often end up going back to the familiar option, rather than trying something new.
As a side note, that’s not what a fallacy is. Fallacies are invalid logical statements, and I didn’t make any false statements or present any sort of false dichotomy. A false dichotomy would be if I said something like, “You have to choose between Signal or WhatsApp,” which is obviously false because you can choose both.
Though again, that’s not something I advocate on purpose, due to the aforementioned issue I have with “being the product,” and it is not fallacious or deceptive to exclude the suggestion of installing both in light of that additional premise.
I think you’ve misunderstood few things in my reply. I’ll clarify…
First, I meant the person with multiple IM clients will be the one who “doesn’t see the problem” with WhatsApp (or whatever). The person moving to Signal just has Signal.
Second, I wasn’t saying you used a fallacy. I was pointing out that when someone thinks of using (or are recommended to use) another IM client, they almost always think they have to uninstall what they’re currently using. (It is more accurate to call it a false dichotomy.) It’s a mystery to me why people think this way about IM clients, as many of us have multiple browsers installed, for example.
Third, my reply was about those you communicate with online, not you. Nothing in my reply was directed at you. 😊
Ah, I gotcha. Yeah, I dunno why people think that way. In that case, I do agree that it’s fallacious thinking.
People can be really silly when it comes to technology.
it requires Whatsapp to open up interoperability with other services if they request that. Signal has already mentioned in the past that they wouldn’t be interested.
I’m looking forward to the day when I confederate my own fucking messaging server. But I doubt that’ll ever come.
I think a lot of the fediverse should introduce Matrix as part of their deployment for private messages directly.
Or XMPP - it’s more accessible to host.
I’ve dealt with xmpp and matrix and I far prefer using matrix tbh. XML is shit in all cases except prompting llms.
I just had a better experience as a normie who doesn’t see these formats. All I see is that Matrix’s Synapse is too heavy to run on my cheap weak VPS, Conduit is not as feature-complete (most importantly - lacks old media and message deletion, which means the only way to free up my small disk space would be a reinstall), and encryption renders messages unreadable from time to time (OMEMO does not break like this).
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Signal had SMS support and dropped it. I imagine any argument for Whatsapp interoperability would face a similar fate.
Hopefully never. Just stop using whatsapp. Be the change.
When facebook bought whatsapp, I walked through the list of chats I had on whatsapp and asked them what other apps they already used. Most people already used something other than a facebook owned thing or were willing to start.
WhatsApp is ubiquitous in Ireland, if only it was as easy to get away from it. Everything from clubs, schools, kids sport is done via group chats on WhatsApp. Absolutely hate Meta as a company, WhatsApp is the only app I use of theirs and only because they bought it from under us. If we could get proper interoperability, we could use a non WhatsApp app, but it’s not looking good so far.
Sounds awful, sorry to hear that
Federating would mean handing off chat metadata to Meta and other for-profit companies in the future.
I don’t see how anyone excited to use Signal would like that. It very much defeats the purpose of using Signal.
This is not federation, this is signal being able to send message to a WhatsApp server and WhatsApp being able to interpret it to send it to a WhatsApp user. WhatsApp wouldn’t know more than what it already knows when you inevitably need to use the app to reply to your grandma or whatever.
A big plus however is that you can convince friends and family to switch since they would be able to keep chatting with their family and friends, so the entry barrier lowers by a ton.
This is not federation and it is great.
The benefit would be the ability to chat with those refusing to move away from WhatsApp without having to use the Whats App. I get why they aren’t going for it, but I guess it could be handy.
Eff em.
Family, friends and most people in general I know use WhatsApp. It’s very very popular in some places.
So? Those of us who have switched to signal clearly don’t want our data going through meta. Just stop using WhatsApp.
I’ve even got old people using it.
I mean I love the passion and I love Signal too but I’m not going to stop messaging my family and friends over their decision to use WhatsApp. Can’t get everyone to switch.
And if they had interoperability towards WhatsApp and had their own stuff too those not using it wouldn’t have to have anything to do with WhatsApp
Fair enough. There are plenty of mostly distant relations of mine who I no longer hear from at all because I don’t use Facebook. So it goes.
I see what you’re saying, but it really undermines Signal’s purpose and their integrity.
Take Telegram for example, they used to have a secret chat option, where you could send a message with E2E encryption. Telegram would tout this secure feature, but it was somewhat hidden away and no one used it.
An even better example is Signal removing its ability to handle SMS because they thought it was confusing to people that some messages it sent were secure, and some weren’t. This WhatsApp integration would again muddy the waters and the average person wouldn’t care to look into or understand the difference.
At the end of the day we as people who care about security need to take on the burden of having multiple messengers for different purposes. The ones that want to join us on Signal can, but if we compromise Signal to meet them where they are, we compromise the simplicity of Signal and no one can say it’s secure and private without listing caveats.
I get why they aren’t going for it, even though it could be handy
Okay, hear me out, but I think it’s actually beneficial.
Your content itself is encrypted, e2e so u don’t need to worry about that.
The signal protocol has recently introduced sealed sender. sealed sender is completely useless if all communications are going through a centralised server, such as the signal server (You can deanonimise senders easily). If the traffic travels across multiple servers with sealed sender, then it is theoretically impossible to reveal who the sender is unless you have communications with that other server give u info on who the sender was. So if you trust signal not to be collecting your metadata, then you must also trust them, not to be giving your metadata to metadata.
Removed by mod
Last I heard Signal wasn’t interested in federating with WhatsApp so that initiative basically died before it was born.
It would go against their principles and the mission of the non-profit that runs Signal. They don’t store any message data on their servers (unlike WhatsApp), and WhatsApp mines as much data as they can from its users.
How much and to what extent, I can’t say, but allowing Signal to federate would essentially let Meta start mining and storing Signal user data. Fuck that noise.
The President of the Signal Foundation (Meredith Whittaker) has commented on this in this podcast episode. Skip to 1:05:45.
I wasn’t aware that it was only about Signal. Thought messengers in general must be able to communicate with each other.
