I understand that it may be problematic sometimes but this was very smooth. I didn’t even say anything.

A: what’s your number for the whatsapp group Me: I don’t have whatsapp because of facebook. B: ok, we have to use signal then A: ok

And that was it. Life can be very easy sometimes

  • ulterno@lemmy.kde.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    30 days ago

    I have a feeling B wanted to use Signal, but expected it to be difficult to make others shift. When OP gave the opportunity, B came in and swyped it right away,

  • ReakDuck@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    People dont install Signal for me, especially feo groups. They use arguments like “yeah, and I also might have reasons not to use Signal like I do with Whatsapp”

    Kinda disrespectful to put a line against a data selling app and comparing it to “nah, I just dont wanna”

    • Spectrism@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      Because it’s proprietary garbage. If there are FOSS alternatives, I’m most definitely going to use them instead of proprietary software, let alone proprietary software by companies like Meta. And since there are plenty of those alternatives: No WhatsApp for me.

        • unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          30 days ago

          Well, WhatsApp is owned by Facebook. They are a large player, so they are under a bunch of scrutiny.

          But at the end of the day, WhatsApp clearly states it takes all this information. They only claim to keep your messages end-to-end encrypted.

          I wonder if this applies to text messages only, or to things like voice memos, images/videos, gifs, etc. as well.

          WhatsApp doesn’t let you send documents if you don’t give it full access to your files. Sure, maybe they pinky-promise don’t do anything but this is Facebook we’re talking about.

          The same caveat goes for photos and videos - you can’t even send a photo if you don’t give it the camera permission and gallery access, something it clearly doesn’t need just to send a single picture.

          Additionally, WhatsApp loads previews of websites. Sure, on the privacy violations list that’s pretty low-priority but I’d still like to not have a link contacted before I can take my 3 seconds to look at it and decide wether it’s worth clicking. Especially since a lot of my contacts send obvious scams (“send this message to 10 contacts for a chance to win a free iPhone” type bullshit mostly).

          Revoking WhatsApp’s contacts permission will not show peoples’ nicknames - it will only ahow numbers. Yet you have to give yourself a nickname on WhatsApp, so they clearly have some interest in your contacts. Otherwise they wouldn’t block it outright when it’s an already implemented feature to show nicknames for numbers not in the contact list.

          All quite suspicious if you ask me. Although I don’t work in cyber security so it’s clearly just incoherent rambing from me.

    • DerisionConsulting@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      30 days ago

      Meta owns it, and meta is one of the large, evil tech corps.

      They are probably the easiest one for most people from English-speaking countries to cut from their lives.

  • Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    30 days ago

    Why would a workplace need a group chat? Aren’t there any enterprise tools in place to achieve that?

    • Clbull@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      30 days ago

      I used to work for a small PPI claims management company. Our accounts team had a WhatsApp group for social discussion outside of work.

      All of our internal work comms were handled through Slack.

    • jet@hackertalks.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      30 days ago

      Emergency team chat when there is a outage of corporate systems

      Chat for social work stuff like team building or off-site gatherings.

      Being about to shit talk about corporate stuff off the reservation is nice.

      It can be a big sms group chat, signal, discord, whatever your team likes.

      • toastal@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        30 days ago

        …to which for privacy reasons your team shouldn’t like SMS, Discord, Telegram, Slack, and probably even Signal (somewhat for privacy, & more for accessibility)

          • rcbrk@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            30 days ago

            XMPP. A business can self-host, there are public servers, or there are many businesses which offer customised xmpp hosting as a service.

            I can be federated with other xmpp servers or be a locked-down work-only service, or federate with chosen other servers (such as a client company’s xmpp servers).

            • ulterno@lemmy.kde.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              30 days ago

              The main problem is, you need to have someone good enough to setup a proper firewall when selfhosting.

              Sure, it might not take $$$$, but it will take $, which is definitely more than\ \ \ \ .

              • rcbrk@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                30 days ago

                If that’s the main problem then that’s easy to solve! Simply use a free public xmpp server.

                I mention the self- and paid-hosting options because businesses tend to like having a sevice agreement backed by a contract, and may have additional specialised requirements not provided by free services (xmpp or otherwise).

              • toastal@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                29 days ago

                Snikket exists for this type of user. If money is an issue, since XMPP is actually lightweight unlike Matrix, you can host multiple things even on the cheapest VPSs so it isn’t dedicated to one taskl or self-host out of your home (which is what I do, but also with some small sites, a feed aggregator, Mumble, terminal sharing, Darcs/Pijul version control systems, & Nix remote builder).

                • ulterno@lemmy.kde.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  29 days ago

                  Skill issue, not money issue.

                  But when you are a business, everything can be converted into a money issue.

    • Baggins@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      30 days ago

      Cannot access work intranet (Teams etc.) from personal phones. Don’t have work phones. They all use WhatsApp so reluctantly, so do I.

      • matlag@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        In these companies, does anyone check the licenses in details to make sure using them is ok for the company?

        Meta will get at least the metadata: meaning they will record who was in which call connecting from where.

        For example, if one member is visiting a client, Meta may be able to infer the relation between the 2 companies.

        If any of the people in the room click “report”, then the discussion is sent for review without the encryption protection

        I’m pretty sure their user agreement translates to “you agree to let us do whatever the f*ck we want with the data you’re purposely disclosing to us”.

        And last but not least: if Meta decides to wipe the archives, any info get lost?

        There a reasons large companies ban unauthorized apps to talk about work.

      • Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        30 days ago

        I would never join a group chat like that. If they need to get ahold if me after hours, they can call me.

        BTW Teams doesn’t live on Intranet. There’s no reason they wouldn’t be able to open up Teams to BYOD beyond incompetence.

        • Baggins@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          29 days ago

          I know Teams doesn’t live on the intranet, but I’m not going to put work software on my own phone. Policy needs it to set up a work profile and I then can’t use fingerprint, face or a 4 digit pin. And all the shite that flows through Teams would be be piling up, just like it does on the PC at work, brilliant when you’re only in a couple of days a week. They want me to use a phone? Provide one.

          The WhatsApp group is for us to send updates about traffic, if someone can cover a shift etc. it’s not an official work thing. I could of course not use it and just text people. That’s really just making my life difficult whilst sat up here on my high horse with a self righteous look on my face, whilst I miss the chance of an extra shift.

          • Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            29 days ago

            Denying putting work stuff on your phone is absolutely valid. The company should provide a company device in that case. And if you do agree to put company data on your phone, they should give a monthly stipend towards your phone bill. That’s how every org I’ve worked at has approached it.

        • filcuk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          29 days ago

          That requires a business login on your personal device, which is typically against company policy.

          Although, so should be sharing work info outside of corporate channels, so what do I know.

        • daellat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          29 days ago

          Really depends a lot on the groupchat. I was apprehensive but it’s quiet there and overall the things that get sent there are either in office hours (e.g. “internet might be out intermittently we are working on a fix”) to links to pay for something someone paid for outside of work like food or drinks.

          I don’t mind it that way, maybe once a week a couple messages

  • abbenm@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    28 days ago

    For a second I thought you meant you don’t use Signal, so they all went there on purpose to avoid you.

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    30 days ago

    For people wondering how to do this in your own lives, have two phones. Have a phone that you install work stuff on, including proprietary apps like WhatsApp. Just tell the people around you hey you can contact me on WhatsApp, but I only see it when I’m at my desk during business hours. I do use more privacy focused platforms on my personal device that you can reach me anytime, such a signal or simple x or matrix. And you’ll find a lot of people are very flexible as long as you give them some reason, and you’re not being unreasonable yourself.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      There is an app on f-droid called “shelter” that gives you access to Android Work Profiles. This is a sandboxed area of your phone that makes it function like a second phone. You can install apps that are only accessible from within that sandbox. You can install a second, sandboxed copy of an app. You can shut down all your sandboxed apps simultaneously.

      I have a bunch of bullshit, garbage apps I very rarely use installed in my sandboxed “work” profile (Facebook, restaurant apps, and some other assorted trash apps) so they won’t harass me at random.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        Shelter is great, and work profiles are an amazing tool to have.

        My intention with having two phones, one always at your desk for work items, is to set coworkers expectations that your not available on corporate systems 24/7. If they want to reach you outside of business hours, they will need to use better platforms. This demonstrates your being reasonable and using Whatsapp (or whatever) to be on the main platforms, but you have a real motivation to use the better platforms (like signal, etc)

      • speeding_slug@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        30 days ago

        I disagree. I absolutely love the fact that I can just turn it off after office hours and throw it in a corner during holidays and weekends. Sure, it’s a bit cumbersome to take two phones with you, but it’s also cumbersome to take the laptop and everything with you all the time. Just put it in the same bag and you’re good. Good to note, my employer provides me with a phone, so I didn’t need to buy a second one. It also means that if I switch jobs, I just return the phone and still have my personal device.

        But if it doesn’t work for you, by all means, don’t do it. For me the good outweighs the bad.

  • communism@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    In all my years of not using WhatsApp this has never happened to me lol. At best I’ve gotten some people to message me individually on Signal but not entire groups

  • shadowwwind@fosstodon.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    30 days ago

    @GravitySpoiled I love this, I had a very similar situation with my sports group, litte questions asked as well! Best thing was the reaction from the leader “I you are kind of right anyways, we should get rid of WhatsApp.”
    Problems only appeared later down the line with people complaining that they don’t get notifications and it’s not a habit for them to check it, so they don’t see new messages.

          • delirious_owl@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            30 days ago

            I’m going to join OP’s company next and say I can’t use signal because phone companies. Then they’ll upgrade to Wire or Matrix

          • TCB13@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            No, Matrix isn’t the best in terms of privacy. It is a metadata disaster and most other platform are a lot more performant.

            Matrix’s E2EE does not, however, encrypt everything. The following information is not encrypted: Message senders, Session/device IDs, Message timestamps, Room members (join/leave/invite events), Message edit events, Message reactions, Read receipts, Nicknames, Profile pictures

            Matrix is developed by a for profit entity, a group of venture capitalists and having a spec doesn’t mean everything. The way Matrix is designed is to force into jumping through hoops and kind of draw all attention to Matrix itself instead of the end result.

            XMPP is the true and the OG federated and truly open solution that is very extensible. XMPP is tested, reliable, secure and above all a truly open standard and decentralized it just lacks some investment in better mobile clients.

            What most fail to see is that XMPP is the only solution that treats messaging and video like email: just provide an address and the servers and clients will cooperate with each other in order to maintain a conversation. Everything else is just an attempt at yet another vendor lock-in.

            People need to get this through their heads, XMPP is the only solution for their problems.

            • umami_wasabi@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              XMPP isn’t any better in terms of metadata. OMEMO is an afterthought that slaps on to XMPP. Many metadata are still attached to the message. The threat model only protects the content and doesn’t guard aginst metadata and traffic analysis. Even OMEMO extension is still in experimental status. Not to mention, users still need to signup an account using their email.

              Honestly, I think SimpleX is better in everyway. No account required, minimal metadata (at least from the technical whitepaper and other sources I read), fully open source (AGPLv3), an ok mobile and desktop client, and audited. The register friction is almost non existance. You just need to install, set a name, and off you go. The only worry I have with them is they took VC funds.

              • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                30 days ago

                I think SimpleX is better in everyway.

                A few SimpleX shortcomings beyond what you noted, in no particular order:

                • No multi-device support.
                • Adding contacts requires sharing somewhat large links (as either text or QR code) which can be inconvenient.
                • Messages are lost if not retrieved soon after they’re sent. (I think it’s 21 days by default. I’ve had vacations longer than that.)
                • No group calls.
                • Group messaging is full-mesh, meaning that as a group grows, the network traffic will balloon faster than it would with any other topology. This is generally bad for high-traffic groups, but it might be okay if they stay small or everyone always has great unmetered connectivity.
                • The claim to not have user IDs is misleading at best, and outright false in group chats.
                • The desktop app uses Java, which will be unappealing to more than a few people. (To be fair, several other messengers use Electron, which is also unappealing to more than a few.)

                It does have some neat design ideas. I don’t consider it ready for general use, but I look forward to seeing how it develops.

                • ᗪᗩᗰᑎ@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  30 days ago

                  agree with your general sentiment. I’ve actually been using it and its very rough around the edges, in addition to being “slow” feeling overall, and I’m just testing it out between one other person and myself on other devices. it’s not something I can recommend to anyone yet, but definitely keeping my eye on it.

              • TCB13@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                30 days ago

                XMPP is way more open and interoperable than all the solutions available, it works like email any user can can talk to any other and doesn’t depend on a some proprietary / closed service centrally owned by anyone. That’s a good selling point.

                XMPP doesn’t really force users to sign up with email address, it just happens that XMPP addresses use the same format, many public servers will give you an address like username@server.example.org that is never mapped to a real email address and only works for XMPP. The decision to actually ask people for their real addresses is up to who owns the server and won’t be directly exposed on the XMPP network.

            • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              People need to get this through their heads, XMPP is the only solution for their problems.

              On the contrary, you need to understand that your own needs and priorities do not match everyone else’s, and that XMPP is not a good fit for every use case.

              (Your rant was amusing, though. I hadn’t seen one like that in a couple weeks.)

              • TCB13@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                30 days ago

                While I agree with your point just tell me what Matrix does better? It’s better at being overly complicated? Or at being more propriety?

                • monk@lemmy.unboiled.info
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  24 days ago

                  Convinces clueless FOSS communities to move off IRC. Onto a unusable protocol designed around netsplits they never cared about, yes, but it’s n o v e l!

                • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  29 days ago

                  Nobody owes you their time or their patience. If you want help understanding something, I suggest you tone down the fearmongering, manipulative, adversarial comments. If you’re just looking for a fight, kindly go elsewhere.

              • TCB13@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                It is as dead as we want. There’s no reason to reinvent the wheel, probably the only thing that XMPP lacks is a bunch of money into a very good, cross-platform (but native) client like Telegram has that actually works 100% of the time and a bunch of large scale public servers to handle regular users who don’t want to host their own. Also… easy registrations and setup on said client.

                For a regular user and most privacy aware people, they just don’t care if the protocol is Matrix, Signal or XMPP - they just want a good end user experience and a solid thing, that’s what XMPP lacks today and it’s all client side.

                Bottom line is: XMPP as a protocol is great, lacks someone with vision and money to drive it into mass adoption.

      • Asudox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        They only realized that when he said that? What a weird infosec team. I guess they also could use SimpleX if they wanted the most secure, private and anonymous option, but I think Signal is pretty well balanced as a messenger. Good privacy and usability.

        • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          30 days ago

          I think you’re over estimating people who works in infosec. All the people I know that work in infosec in corporations are just regular windows support people assigned to keep the security updates on day.

      • dustyData@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Often times people have resolved all the rational arguments to act on a decision but lack on an emotional excuse to figuratively pull the trigger. I’d bet on someone high up had already made up their mind and you not using WhatsApp was the perfect excuse to just have the whole team finally migrate.