Cyber Security MumboJumbo. a.k.a. Instagram Hates Cyborgs. a.k.a. Cyborgs hate Instagram


Because at some point I looked back and realised I had literally 0 photos of myself for the whole past… decade?

I’m a fan of Reddit, I have insta because vanity and I killed my Facebook to get rid of that toxicity in my life.

I’m not sure I’d share digitally about implants, other than a tease or two in there because I have lots of judgey mundanes in my life.

Weird it got nuked tho, especially on DM. But who knows why, really.

Oh the irony…

Why’s that ironic? Facebook is words and crazies and family who I don’t want to find me, Instagram is pretty pictures, alternate usernames and Chrissy Teigan.

Instagram is Facebook.

1 Like

Instagram got bought by Facebook… and now they are basically the same thing.
(if you hit an image’s URL you’ll see facebook’s domain. The messaging service they use is facebook’s messenger. etc…)


Also, the account apparently just got back to life, out of no reason.
Not gonna poke it, though…
In these semi-zombie apocalypse times, I’ve learned to let dead things stay dead. :sweat_smile:

Facebook accounts are never truly deleted

of course. why would they get rid of your personal data? just because you asked for them to do so?? :rofl:

yeah, it is a terrible company, but they do have an almost monopoly over all the widespread used comms mechanism (also inclusive of Whatsapp).

I love IRC and raw Jabber. but less than 2% of my contacts use these.

I already had to give up on talking to some people who only use Facebook as a means of comms.

More and I strand myself :woman_shrugging:

I have few friends who do Facebook. Somehow the type of personality I have doesn’t go well with the type of personality of people who do Facebook. The few friends I have who do do Facebook know full well it’s no use telling me about it, and communicate with me using normal, non-social media means.

Problem there is…

Whatsapp, Telegram, etc…
Those all class as “normal, non social-media” means.
Especially if it’s communication across borders, where phone calls and sms messages still cost a fortune!

And those means are also owned either by facebook (Whatsapp), or have similar issues (Telegram), or have zero adoption…

the 3 platforms with chat feature that contain roughly 90+% of the western userbase are “Whats, Insta and Face”. All 3 belong to Facebook. :expressionless:

You have different definitions of non-social media :slight_smile:

I was talking email, SMS and telephone. Or SW / VHF for ham buddies.

Technically, IRC is a social media platform, and it’s been well known for decades that IRC convos are logged on public IRC servers like Freenode. So not much difference from FB as far as privacy is concerned. The difference is, when I and my friends do IRC, we do it on our own, closed servers.

What is the difference between SMS/Telephone and… say Whatsapp?

They both achieve exactly the same results and have exactly the same tools and features. Inclusive of group chats via SMS and conference calls via telephone.

The only difference is that for many of my friends abroad using Whatsapp has zero cost, whilst a phone call might cost them as much as a month’s rent (not even exxagerating)

so… honestly curious… what is it that makes Whatsapp into “social media”?

PS: I can still see when you’re typing, Rosco!

1 Like

I post many RFID Stuff on my Instagram account - no problems.

I use the hashtags:

#rfidimplant #rfidimplantat #nfcimplant #nfcimplantat #chipimplant # chipimplantat # nfcchip #rfidchip
I tag also ksec, dangerousthings, vivokey, digiwell ,…

on tiktok: only problems with my chipping clips - they get deleted, but I could explain the video - i write them - "this is similar to petchips . youz can pay with them, open doors.

They deleted it because it is: “drug abuse” After explaining them, i got always my clips back.

“Social media” is the biggest misnomer since “national socialist” and “intelligence agency”.

My definition of it is: it’s an electronic venue that provides its users with a simulation of human contact, that’s rather poor and devoid of true humanity, for the sole purpose of spying upon said users to learn as much as they can about them and monetize their data.

In other words, Whatsapp, Facebook, LinkedIn are honeypots that lure people with beaucoup shiny, and provide some social-like services that aren’t worth what you unknowingly pay for it.

We the social media users are cattle: we get fed what we want at the front-end, and the social media companies discreetly puts the milking machine on ours teats, hoping that we won’t notice - or worse, that we won’t mind. Or rather, you. Not me.

SMS, telephone… Well, they’re carriers. You pay for a service and whoever provides the service doesn’t need to spy on you to make money. Their income come from the sale of their service, not from exploiting the shit out of you behind your back.

That’s what separates telcos from social media companies. Telcos have no incentive to spy on you, whereas social media does by its very nature. I’d rather pay and not be spied upon (not normally anyway) than not pay and be the product.

Yeah yeah, I remembered why I had uninstalled withExEditor: the host process takes up 70M of ram, runs all the time and drops temp files without cleaning them up after it’s done. It’s a great extension, but it’s a bit too wasteful for what it does for me - that is, nothing other than spawn an external editor to edit a textarea.

If you combine:

With any definition of human contact derived from use of Whatsapp…

Then shouldn’t e-mails, sms and telephones also fall under your definition of Social Media?

Maybe this is where you draw the line, then?

In which case… I can guarantee you that your regular phone carrier has even more control and “spy power” on you than any app will ever have.
I’ve worked in enough “Lawfull interception” projects to know what’s going on behind the curtains. :wink:

Btw, I’m not “defending” Whatsapp. I just can’t place it in a distinct category from regular phone calls and messaging.

As in… you cannot use Whatsapp to meet new people and have random interactions any more than you can do with your phone line. Facebook, LinkedIn, etc… they are all actively promoting fake social interactions. Completely agree there. But as for Whatsapp, it’s use case is literally the same as for your phone and SMS.

Arguably, it’s even less of a “social scam platform” as e-mail is, now-a-days.

Actually… Not only they do that, but most governments around the globe even demand that the carriers keep a registry of every single bit of information going around their networks.

Carriers/Telcos are the biggest spies you can think of, and they do make far money from that than Facebook even dreams of.
Especially because their income comes from both the sale of their service to you, and from exploiting your communications behind your back. often hand-in-hand with government agencies.

Do you really think that intelligence agencies ask Facebook to provide them with whatsapp conversations? Most even have laws “forcing” the carriers to hand these over already! (and this is not just an assumption.)

Now… that being said… I do despise whatsapp anyway. Even if only for the blatant lies they disseminate (Claiming the users are protected under “End-to-End encryption” is borderline offensive, preying on peoples limited understanding of how encryption works)

Well… given that the two options are:

  • Not Pay, and be spied upon.
  • … Pay, and be spied upon even more.

I would rather not pay. :rofl:

Holy crap!
Who developed it, Google? :rofl:

That is an insane amount of memory for a text editor/etc. :neutral_face:

My account came back, but without the video I had posted.

Re-posted, and all is good!

My main guess here is… AIs still under training, they might get a sample group to be ran on each AI farm… you might be in one and I on another. ^^

I can see so clearly why an AI would think that!! :sweat_smile:
silly little buggers. :yum:

They actually are… Whatsapp uses Signal’s protocol behind the scenes, which is very well regarded for it’s security. Saying that, they still know how much you’re sending, how often you’re sending, and who you’re sending messages to, and any other metadata. That is more than enough to gather quite a bit of information about someone.

That is the problem. Signal is also a lie.

The protocols it implements are great!

The Encryption algorithms are great!

Yet… the Fallacy lies on the “handshake”, as with most things cybersecurity-wise.

End to end encryption in a nutshell:

  • I will encrypt a message
  • I send an encrypted message, wrapped with some metadata (problems of which you already raised)
  • you receive my encrypted package
  • you use my decryption key to decrypt my message.

This all works fine because no matter who gets hold of the message, they will not have my decryption keys!

So far so good: both Signal and Whatsapp technically do implement End to End encryption.

When I said that :

The lie/offense happens because when those apps state the above, they are intentionally leading you to believe no one will be able to read your messages. but that is a lie.
The service providers will always be able to read your messages.

Because you must give them your decryption keys, or the other end of the conversation won’t be able to decrypt your messages either!

Let’s say you give me your phone number now. I send you a message.

How on earth are you going to decrypt it without my decryption keys? You won’t.

So in order for you to read my messages the app must also send you my decryption keys.

Now the server also has access to those keys, therefore they also have access to all the content from my messages.

Yet, they lead the users to believe that if something is End to End encrypted, they won’t have access to it.

The only way to truly have what people expect from end to end encryption is if you manually share the decryption keys, in person. Also helps if the decryption and display mechanism is completely isolated from the network side of the app, with separate privilege groups.

That’s only true for symmetric ciphers. Asymmetric ciphers (public key) alleviate this problem: Alice sends her public key to Bob. Bob encrypts his message using Alice’s public key. Only Alice with her secret key can decrypt Bob’s message. Do it both ways and you have end-to-end cryptography without any intermediary.

How else do you think you can securely connect to an https server?

Yeah, I tried to keep things simple, and overdid that. :stuck_out_tongue:

You are perfectly correct.

I wanted to put an emphasis on the fact you must exchange keys. But ended up giving a wrong impression on doing so.

The issue with Signal/Whatsapp lies on the way they perform the handshake. Or better yet… how they re-do it, and the large number of times this happens, which include a failsafe which can be exploited…

I am still covered by an NDA there, so can’t share much. but there is some clever (cleverer than my math level) predictive math behind it which allows the server to capture enough data to decrypt the messages.

If you want to dig deeper there, the Bandersnach decryption hack shares some of those principles. :wink: