Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Social Networks

Tens of Millions Secretly Use WhatsApp Despite Bans, Company Says 25

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
"Tens of millions" of people are using technical workarounds to secretly access WhatsApp in countries where it is banned, the messaging platform's boss has said. From a report: "You'd be surprised how many people have figured it out," Will Cathcart told BBC News. Like many Western apps, WhatsApp is banned in Iran and North Korea and, intermittently, in Syria. And last month, China joined the list of those banning users from accessing the secure platform. Other countries, including Qatar, Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, restrict features such as voice calls.

But WhatsApp can see where its users truly are, thanks to their registered phone numbers. "We have a lot of anecdotal reports of people using WhatsApp and what we can do is look at some of the countries where we're seeing blocking and still see tens of millions of people connecting to WhatsApp," Mr Cathcart told BBC News. China ordered Apple to block Chinese iPhone users from downloading WhatsApp from the AppStore in April, a move Mr Cathcart calls "unfortunate" -- although the country was never a major market for the app. "That's a choice Apple has made," he said. "There aren't alternatives. I mean, that is really a situation where they've put themselves in the position to be able to truly stop something."

Tens of Millions Secretly Use WhatsApp Despite Bans, Company Says More | Reply

Tens of Millions Secretly Use WhatsApp Despite Bans, Company Says

Comments Filter:

  • Well, as every ifan will tell you (Score:4, Funny)

    by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Wednesday May 01, 2024 @03:32PM (#64439754)

    Third party app stores are too dangerous for the well being of society to allow to exist in any form.

  • China ordered Apple to block Chinese iPhone users from downloading WhatsApp from the AppStore in April, a move Mr Cathcart calls "unfortunate" -- although the country was never a major market for the app. "That's a choice Apple has made," he said. "There aren't alternatives. I mean, that is really a situation where they've put themselves in the position to be able to truly stop something."

    I'm not saying Apple did/didn't make the right call. However, Apple definitely wasn't in a position to stop something. If China says no app, either the app goes or Apple goes. Both options would remove access to the app through Apple.

    • Or, Apple could always allow sideloading.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Xenx ( 2211586 )
        I support the idea of Apple allowing sideloading. That said, Telgram's CEO believes Apple was the target of the apps being removed. The purpose being to drive people to Chinese android phones. I cannot say they're correct, or not. However, if there is any truth to that, Apple would likely have been in trouble if they did opt to open up sideloading.

        • Apple would likely have been in trouble if they did opt to open up sideloading.

          You argument about Apple potentially getting into trouble if they refused orders, or if they allowed sideloading specifically for Whatsapp. The Whatsapp CEO talks about Apple products in general. He says is that because Apple products do not allow sideloading, Apple is in a unique situation of "truly stopping" an application, because there is no workaround. He says this in contrast to Android phones where, despite the main actors removing Whatsapp or some other censored application from their respective app

      • We could end up with a future where Apple allows sideloading everywhere but China...

        • Yeah, or a future where we all live in a place with shit-rules for the Internet and lots of stupid laws. So, in the end you cannot use the Internet without a VPN that shows your location as Tokelau or Sealand or some kinda tiny sovereign nation that specializes in VPNs.
          • Maybe a civilization with a government that does more than national defense is doomed to become a mess. I mean, our forefathers went to war with England over a 3% tax on tea alone. The pharaoh of Egypt taxed his slaves 20% of their crop. Is government really worth the expense in its expanded role now? Why is it involved in so much that what chat app we use is any of their fucking business? How have we come to accept that? Anywhere? I mean really....
            • High five and spot on.

              The serfs in the middle ages paid less in taxes than we do now. The government is nearly completely authoritarian and almost all our Bill of Rights "rights" are pro-forma bullshit. The "parties" are the same War Party / Uniparty and they serve the same masters in the same smoke-filled-rooms. You cannot own anything the government can't legally steal from you (be one thing if they just took it but they steal with the full force of law behind them, nowadays). You're not allowed to def

            • I mean, our forefathers went to war with England over a 3% tax on tea alone.

              First, it wasn't a "war with England" (Britain to be more precise) so much as a de-facto civil war seeking independence from the monarchy as most already considered themselves to be British. Second, there were 27 grievances against the king listed in the declaration of independence, and taxation was only one of them. Third, the taxation was on all sorts of goods, not just tea, and it was used to fund a war with France that most of the colonists didn't even want. During the course of which, by the way, the k

            • Everyone's a fan of shrinking the government until you ask them how they feel about grandma dying destitute in the street because she can't afford a place to live.

          • If it's shit laws all the way down you won't be allowed to use a VPN without a license

            • Good point. I fully expect all that at some point.

              The main thing that the man uses to keep folks down is the threat of ruining folks with kiddie porn. Allow me to explain. Anyone who's in good with The Man gets some sort of indemnification (like Section 230 of Title 47). Anyone who tries to build a private network, say for example out of backyard wifi, we have to crush immediately. They'd do it by claiming that since you aren't a "licensed" network operator the fact that some pervert neighbor downloaded

  • "secure platform" (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Signal, Wire, sure.

    WhatsApp? Gonna need receipts on that one.

    Haven't there already been instances where Meta gave up info from "secure" WhatsApp chats to legal/govt requests?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shakrai ( 717556 )

      Haven't there already been instances where Meta gave up info from "secure" WhatsApp chats to legal/govt requests?

      Meta can give up the metadata (pun intended) of who you're speaking with, which is often enough for legal/govt purposes, but they cannot give up the content of the messages.

      The biggest problem with WhatsApp -- if you aren't a tinfoil hat wearing paranoid -- isn't Big Brother. It's Big Data. WhatsApp will happily ingest your contact list, photos, location, and all manner of other sensitive information, after which Meta will happily use said data to sell you ads. Nothing stops Signal from doing the same,

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by jonadab ( 583620 )
      WhatsApp is owned by the same company as Facebook.

      There has never been another company in the entire history of the Earth, that has been caught violating its own stated privacy policy and doing things with user data that it had specifically promised *not* to do, more times than this company.

      I'm not saying they're the most evil company ever. They're not. There have been companies that have done worse things to people. Like, participating in genocide, for example. And there are companies that are in bed w

  • But boy did the constituents cheer when their ineffective policies went live...

    • Win-win?
      That's unusual for the USA. I guess the illusion of zero-sum is enough.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      But boy did the constituents cheer when their ineffective policies went live...

      And this is what should really concern people about the talk of a Tik Tok ban. What happens when Bytedance tells the US govt to go blow itself? Despotic regimes like North Korea, Iran and China are struggling to keep control of information despite having control over almost all the points of ingress of the internet, they've banned Whatsapp but people are still getting it. What chance does an open society like the US have. They might be able to force Apple and Google to de-list the app in their app store...

  • Iffy (Score:2)

    by dwater ( 72834 )

    I've never had WhatsApp not work in China, for some definition of "work".
    Ie, I can always send/receive messages and calls, but sending/receiving videos and files requires some attention. By attention, I mean using a internet connection that doesn't have GFW applied - for me that means roaming data (over China Mobile, and metered, but doesn't cost any extra) or vpn (preferred due to not being metered).
    It's often assumed that every internet connection has GFW, like China was some big company with a firewall o

Slashdot Top Deals

The trouble with computers is that they do what you tell them, not what you want. -- D. Cohen

Close