Posted by mdhb 5 days ago
If the company is so bad (it is), why does he want back?!
'Just pay me the salaries I "missed", and keep them coming.' The regulatory action is just "potential".
I have no sympathy for Meta, but this guy...
Even if nothing changes (the regulatory action is optional), he's happy to contribute (he insists, in fact). Even among people who don't want him there.
Any full remedy would require his position is reinstated.
If he wins the right to be reinstated, he will be happy to negotiate a payment instead. He is made whole.
What about any of that lacks sensible motives?
> he will be happy to negotiate a payment instead.
This, indeed, sounds way more normal than wanting to keep working for the evil company, and in a toxic environment.
It hasn't occurred to me that one can change their mind and choose a different compensation after the court decision like that.
You don't negotiate with what you don't have yet. But the idea that he or they would actually want to resume working together is beyond unlikely. They will be happy to pay for him to go away, if that's the only way they can legally get rid of him.
When these conditions aren't met, any e2e encryption claim can be dismissed out of hand. This does not mean the service offers no value, it just means it cannot be trusted to keep anything confidential.
Counterpoint: he's a monopolist and scummy person (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1692122) who refuses to stop (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/09/snapchat-reporte...) from the early days onwards (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1169354)
Skeletons keep piling up while PR try to dismiss them
Corporate communications has playbook damage control responses, and this quote seems to be suggesting that the quoted response is one of them (it's "familiar").
Whether "former employees" are sketchily operating from playbooks, who knows. Because PR playbook-sounding statements don't have a lot of credibility.
Or the PR team undermines their own credibility with a stock and specious fact-free non-response.
I think the point of these is to dodge the even guiltier look of “no comment”. And signal there won’t be any potentially costly cooperative engagement from their side to their shareholders.
They don’t expect to be believed.
This said, WhatsApp is not open source, so it's impossible for users to verify how the encryption works, so users have to trust that it's properly end-to-end encrypted.
If you care about privacy (and you should), then you should use Signal instead of WhatsApp.
Well with WhatsApp they most definitely can, but it has never been a secret. WhatsApp always had access to the metadata (whereas Signal makes a lot of effort to reduce the metadata they have access to). In ~2016 WhatsApp integrated the Signal protocol to add end-to-end encryption, but did nothing about the metadata.
Again: if you care about privacy, use Signal.
I don't even take this statement at face value. It's trivially easy to include models on client side that can do some message classification and treat that as "metadata" that would give insight into the content of the message.
If an app sends the message content in clear through the notifications, then it is badly designed, period.
If WhatsApp central servers could push a notification to your phone that contained your actual message content, it couldn't be E2EE.
Complaint:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.45...