WhatsApp Will Soon Let Users Share Photos in HD
WhatsApp Will Soon Let Users Share Photos in HD
WhatsApp is finally allowing users to send photos in HD. This new capability will roll out to all users over the next few weeks, and videos are next.
WhatsApp is finally letting users share pictures in better quality. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the new capability on Instagram today (via The Verge), and support for HD pictures will roll out to all WhatsApp users over the next few weeks.
As WhatsApp is used in many countries with poor connectivity, the app compresses images and videos to use less bandwidth. However, support for sending HD videos on WhatsApp is also coming soon according to Meta.
WABetaInfo previously reported that the beta version of WhatsApp for iOS and Android added support for sharing HD photos back in June. At the time, beta testers needed to manually choose the HD option every time they wanted to send a picture to other users. This is likely still the case, again, to save storage space and send photos faster.
According to The Verge, WhatsApp users on slow connections still get the choice to receive photos in either standard or HD quality. Either way, all pictures sent via WhatsApp are encrypted by default.
Last month, WhatsApp also announced that it had started rolling out video messages to all users. Video messages are currently limited to 60 seconds, and they should also become available for all users over the coming weeks.
You're viewing a single thread.
You could always do that in Telegram...
And Signal...
But Telegram isn't private/secure by default. By default everything is stored on their servers in an way that's accessible to admins, whoever buys them or infiltrates their infra - YIKES
WhatsApp is owned by Facebook. Are you really arguing privacy here?
@GigglyBobble @ugjka @ChapolinColoradoNZ @KLISHDFSDF Yes, WhatsApp is end-to-end encrypted by default while Telegram is not. Telegram sells itself as secure but among popular messengers, privacy wise, it's the worst one.
I know but your metadata is all they need and cross-referenced with all the other tracking and accounts they have, there's zero privacy left.
Putting on tinfoil hat: or is it e2e encrypted? They hired Moxie to set up the signal protocol but who knows it's still in use since it's closed source? Even if it is still active: what key is used for encryption? Maybe a hard-coded one owned by Meta?
No, I don't really believe that as according to Snowden in his earliest whistle blowing even the NSA is primarily interested in metadata. You can derive pretty much everything from that alone.
all they need and cross-referenced with all the other tracking and accounts they have, there’s zero privacy left.
Privacy, like security, is about layers. Just because they have your metadata doesn't mean you go ahead and give them everything else.
Putting on tinfoil hat: or is it e2e encrypted?
Fair criticism, I'd recommend either Signal, Matrix, or XMPP over Telegram/Facebook(Meta).
You can derive pretty much everything from that [Metadata] alone.
Oversimplifying what actually happens. They can infer what may have happened based on other data points but its not 100% accurate. You can avoid all these metadata issues by not using messengers by Google/Facebook/Meta/Telegram in the first place.
I’d recommend either Signal, Matrix, or XMPP over Telegram/Facebook(Meta).
Yes, me too. This whole discussion gave the impression that WhatsApp > Telegram and while this may be true the unfortunately very high adoption of WhatsApp made me argue against it. I'm well aware that Telegram isn't an alternative but the ones you mentioned are (personally I use Signal and even got a significant amount of people convinced to st least run it in parallel).
Succinctly: neither are good options if privacy is a concern for you.
@gravitas_deficiency This is true. That's why I run a private XMPP server in my home for me and my family.
Privacy isn't the reason I use Telegram, so it's moot.
And that's a valid point. Many people use Facebook for the features it provides knowing that they're giving away their data to a third party. As long as the consumer is aware of what they're doing and the pros/cons is all that matters.
Well the same can be said about email providers ...
Yes, but nobody expects modern encryption on legacy services like email. Should email be end-to-end encrypted? Absolutely, but that's completely unrelated to private 1-1 and group messaging.