Ex-WhatsApp cybersecurity head says Meta endangered billions of users

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/08/meta-user-data-lawsuit-whatsapp

by mdhb • 11 months ago

347 178 11 months ago

theguardian.com

gnabgib• 11 months ago

Edit: Oof good catch (bad day for Meta)

mdhb• 11 months ago

This is unfortunately entirely seperate from that other article.

FTA:

Attaullah Baig, who served as head of security for WhatsApp from 2021 to 2025, claims that approximately 1,500 engineers had unrestricted access to user data without proper oversight, potentially violating a US government order that imposed a $5bn penalty on the company in 2020.

wordofx3• 11 months ago

So much for that e2e encryption that HN claimed was so good and that META couldn’t possibly use what’s app messages to do advertising from.

alaq• 11 months ago

Messages are e2e and WA doesn't have access to them. We're talking about the metadata here.

From the article: > including contact information, IP addresses and profile photos

I can confirm this, I used to work at WhatsApp.

wordofx3• 11 months ago

Meta/WA. Same thing. Might have worked at WhatsApp but FB still advertises based on conversation content.

roelschroeven• 11 months ago

We don't really know that messages really are end-to-end encrypted though, do we? Is there a way to actually check that the messages in transit are encrypted in a way that only the other end can decrypt them? If not, we have to take Meta's word for it, which frankly doesn't carry much weight.

const_cast3• 11 months ago

Messages are e2e and WA doesn't have access to them. We're talking about the metadata here.

You're still just blindly trusting this is the case. You can't verify the encryption or any of the code.

It would be trivial to actually encrypt the message and send it out and then store an unecrypted version locally and quietly exfiltrate it later.

They have to already be storing an unecrypted version locally, because you can see the messages. So unless your analyzing packets on the scale of months or years, you cannot possibly know that it isn't being exfiltrate at some point.

Take it a step further: put the extiltration behind a flag, and then when the NSA asks, turn on the flag for that person. Security researchers will never find it.

tamimio2• 11 months ago

HN isn’t monolith, I personally never said WhatsApp is good, and I’m telling you from now avoid Signal too till they remove the phone number requirement AND you can deploy your own server.

lordofgibbons• 11 months ago

Given how WhatsApp is the de-facto way to communicate outside of the West and China, these security/data-handling "weaknesses" are most likely a feature, not a bug. An absolute bonanza for the certain intelligence services.

Remember, kids: End to end encryption is useless if the "ends" are fully controlled by an (untrustworthy) third party.

crypto_throwa• 11 months ago

Without open source, end to end encryption is useless. It's not hard to hide a piece of code that defeats the encryption in closed source code.

another_twist3• 11 months ago

Curious, is there a poc somewhere demonstrating an attack like this ?

__spooky__• 11 months ago

iMessage is end to end encrypted. Although Apple says it secure and the courts and FBI seem to not be able to get it in, it is still closed source.

saagarjha3• 11 months ago

It is actually quite difficult.

cataflam2• 11 months ago

outside of the West

you probably mean outside of the USA, it's huge in Europe/UK

(which doesn't contradict your main point)

kwanbix• 11 months ago

It is huge in Latin America.

USA is special because it is the (only?) country where iPhone has more users than Android.

zer0zzz• 11 months ago

I’m not sure that’s true. I’m fairly certain UK, France, AU, Canada WhatsApp is not vastly more popular than the blue bubble alternative. At least I believe this was the case a few years ago, based on data I’d seen.

thaumasiotes• 11 months ago

I would have thought he meant "inside of the West". Outside of the West you have other channels.

Russia: Telegram

Taiwan: Line

Japan: Line

By contrast, WhatsApp is best known to me for being used in Europe, Australia, and India.

thewebguyd• 11 months ago

Makes you wonder if Meta got one or more of those secret national security letters, or foreign equivalents.

Also makes me wonder about Google's change wrt android security patches - under the guise of "making it easier for OEMs" by moving to quarterly is actually just so that Paragon and other nation state spyware has access to the vulnerabilities for at least 4 months before they get patched.

saagarjha3• 11 months ago

Ok, what do you suggest instead?

realz• 11 months ago

I think Signal is the safest choice. If you want to be absolutely sure, host your own service, and hope you know how to make it have airtight security.

dijit2• 11 months ago

End to end encryption is useless if the "ends" are fully controlled by a (..) third party.

YES!

sulandor• 11 months ago

although e2ee does raise the cost for an attacker, the perceived gain in trustworthiness of the system is unjustified

tgsovlerkhgsel2• 11 months ago

E2EE is likely the reason why this supposedly includes "contact information, IP addresses and profile photos" and not message content.

achrono• 11 months ago

From the article:

According to the 115-page complaint, Baig discovered through
internal security testing that WhatsApp engineers could “move
or steal user data” including contact information, IP addresses
and profile photos “without detection or audit trail”.

That isn't really the breach you're making it out to be. Profile photos, unless made private/contacts only, are already publicly visible, and so is "contact information".

Of course these are useful to intelligence services, but this doesn't mean that Baig found they don't have true end-to-end encryption.

mgh23• 11 months ago

A Meta spokesperson, Andy Stone, wrote on Threads, the company’s text-based social network: “Sadly this is a familiar playbook in which a former employee is dismissed for poor performance and then goes public with distorted claims that misrepresent the ongoing hard work of our team.”

Skeletons keep piling up while PR try to dismiss them

neilv2• 11 months ago

That quote is brilliant.

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.

Nevermark4• 11 months ago

Innocent until proven guilty.

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.

princevegeta892• 11 months ago

It will be so foolish of anyone to think that WhatsApp is a truly e2e encrypted messaging platform.

another_twist3• 11 months ago

Why ? You think Meta removed the privacy layers or put backdoors in place ? I mean if that's the suspicion, maybe we should read the terms of service and see if they actually guarantee E2E encryption

princevegeta892• 11 months ago

Every message we send via this service still most likely goes through it's bots that try to gather user context.

I'm guessing there will be some tricky legal wording in their T&C that wouldn't rule them out from being an intermediate entity that can see messages.

alex11383• 11 months ago

The way Zuckerberg tricked Acton and Koum is by itself enough for me not to trust Whatsapp. Even from a hypothetical "their encryption works but that's really scummy" perspective

It was bought as a power play, consolidation of tech power. Why would I trust them to do the right thing?

ipython• 11 months ago

I’m sure WhatsApp’s recent “secure by design” media and ad blitz is totally unrelated to these accusations …

ath3nd• 11 months ago

What a trash company Meta has consistently been.

From enabling genocide in Myanmar, to interfering with elections, to giving user data to third parties in violation of its own daya policies, to straight up weird stuff like pirating/torrening books to train their steaming pile of garbage called llama, to having sex chatbots be weird to children.

And then there is the even weirder decisions of zuck, the biggest loser of all:

- VR didnt seem to catch on

- the metaverse is a giant smelly pile of poo and he sunk millions in it

- he is hiring AI engineers at absurd money in a rapidly cooling bubble market

- he immediately started ass kissing the orange stain that calls himself president

Is he purposefully trying to be a caricature cartoon vilain, a grotesque loser, and his company an emblem of evil? Or is it just cluelessness?

globalnode• 11 months ago

They managed to tap in to a seemingly unlimited ocean of uninformed useful idiots, paid shills, bots and psychopaths. Its how you get rich in social media.

rhizome2• 11 months ago

Greater Fool Theory

asadotzler• 11 months ago

the metaverse is a giant smelly pile of poo and he sunk millions in it

He sunk tens of billions.

Estimates (because we don't have "Reality Labs" broken out before 2019) put Zuck's Metaverse Misadventure & Boondoggle about $75B in the hole ($10B revenue on $85B spend) with no signs of a turnaround in revenue.

There are plans to turn things around with AR spectacles but decent ones are years off and will require entirely new investment with little re-use of that $75B Metaverse nonsense (Oculus acquisition, 5 generations of Quest R&D, Horizon Worlds, partnered and sponsored games and content, etc.)

The only real ROI will be the experience and staff gained. The rest will almost certainly land in the dustbin.

vladmk• 11 months ago

nothing new here.

npalli• 11 months ago

All Meta guys develop a conscience after leaving Meta.

danudey• 11 months ago

You have to put your conscience in escrow until your options vest.

pixl97• 11 months ago

I mean the options are

1) leave quietly and tell no one: con - no one on HN gets to talk about it. The next person needing money does it anyway.

2) leave loudly when you're still poor: con - you get blacklisted from tech and die from a preventable disease working at a gas station without insurance. The company implements the policy anyway.

3) leave loudly when your rich: con - people accuse you of selling out the users.

Vinnl2• 11 months ago

Well, not all of them: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/aug/23/facebook-ni...

mentalgear2• 11 months ago

Seems just in line with all the other Meta Scandals: from providing a platform for genocide in Myanmar, harming the psychology of 100s of millions of teenagers (Instagram) to pushing extremist and fascists content while receiving big ad cash dollars for propaganda that lifts criminals and fascist politicians into the highest offices. Meta has no red lines, as long as it lines Zuckerberg's pockets.

mentalgear2• 11 months ago

If you haven't already: Signal is the strongest independent e2e encrypted consumer app that is driven by a non-profit organisation using a zero knowledge approach.

TiredOfLife• 11 months ago

Signal is a cryptocoinscam company

palata3• 11 months ago

I hate Meta as much as the next person, but it feels like "endangering billions of users" is exagerating here. The complaint is pretty much that WhatsApp engineers can access metadata (NOT the content of the messages).

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.

ryandrake• 11 months ago

The metadata of someone's communications can be almost as damning as the content. I would guess that if the FBI could merely have a list of who their suspect contacted over an app, and when, they'd have 90% of what they wanted.

rhizome2• 11 months ago

My understanding is that in the vast majority of investigations law enforcement will be satisfied in learning only who you're talking to, i.e. "just metadata" is fine, and dangerous.

palata3• 11 months ago

I would guess that if the FBI could merely have a list of who their suspect contacted over an app, and when

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.

mynameisash• 11 months ago

The complaint is pretty much that WhatsApp engineers can access metadata (NOT the content of the messages).

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.

alehlopeh2• 11 months ago

Metadata includes notifications, which often include the text of the message.

palata3• 11 months ago

Pretty sure this is wrong, at least in the case of WhatsApp.

If an app sends the message content in clear through the notifications, then it is badly designed, period.

btown• 11 months ago

Full text of the lawsuit: https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/BaigvMe...

diimdeep• 11 months ago

Here is 115 pages: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.45...

from here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71293063/baig-v-meta-pl...

    This further surprised Mr. Baig, as WhatsApp, which is known for its strong security brand externally, had such a small security team of just 6 engineers, and they were all only working on this tiny aspect of application security. All the other teams in WhatsApp were well staffed. The engineering team had about 1200 engineers. In addition, there were about 100 product managers, about 100 product designers, nearly 200 data scientists, etc. WhatsApp overall had about 3000 employees.

    “Are we going to be in the same situation as Mudge at Twitter?”

WhatsApp is way beyond just texting and calling, it is basically global infrastructure now, used daily by governments, NGOs, and billions. This is not a startup screw-up, it's a public utility gone seriously messed up. Heads need to roll. Stop playing god. Secure the platform or step aside.

tabbytown• 11 months ago

had such a small security team of just 6 engineers

≥ Company refused to allocate more than around 10 engineers to the Security team at any point

If true, this tells the story here with security culture at WhatsApp. Assuming a backlog of known weaknesses (as any established code base will have), and the velocity that 100 PMs and 1200 SWEs implies, how would you do anything as a security team besides stick your fingers in the figurative holes in the dike? The ensuing conflict between Baig and his superiors about not fixing stuff is surely going to result in an assessment of "poor performance" but is likely just Baig giving a f** about user data.

storus3• 11 months ago

Didn't Hacker News feature an article on their home page at some point (10 years ago?) that at that time Facebook misconfigured something and users could observe their data being fed directly to some Israeli intelligence company? That was the day I deleted my FB account and never looked at anything they offer anymore.

stingraycharles2• 11 months ago

At this point it’s best to assume that everything you communicate is being collected in some way.

There are very, very few apps I really trust. E.g. the only mechanism I trust for communicating passwords securely is GPG, I wouldn’t even use Signal for that.

cryptoegorophy• 11 months ago

Unless you owner of the app and what they are doing exactly you can’t trust anyone. You don’t know what they are going through or if they sold the app to someone or had a certain code implementation that leaks all of your data. I stopped using Chrome when I had clear evidence of it leaking data - urls visited.

ars• 11 months ago

Are you thinking of Cambridge Analytica? That was a British company, not Israeli.

storus3• 11 months ago

No, CA was later. This incident was earlier in FB's lifecycle.

alex11383• 11 months ago

I've seen some people right here on HN say that Whatsapp was an inspired acquisition and Zuck is a great product guy, knows what to buy and who to hire

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)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15007454

gerdesj• 11 months ago

"He also claimed the company failed to remedy the hacking and takeover of more than 100,000 accounts each day, ignoring his pleas and proposed fixes and choosing instead to prioritize user growth."

There is no oversight of these monstrosities of any sort. I doubt anyone would have issues with the thesis that Meta would implement anything that might curb their user numbers unless it was mandated.

Why would they? They are beholden to their shareholders first. If it isn't illegal then it isn't illegal, immoral perhaps but that is not illegal, unless it is illegal.

My learned friends are going to have to really get their bowling arms warmed up for this sort of skit. For starters, you need a victim ... err complainant.

alex11383• 11 months ago

Zuckerberg has a different class of shares

And not every CEO begins life in their company with "if you need any info just ask, they trust me, dumb fucks"

bcye• 11 months ago

Where is that quote from?

fHr• 11 months ago

still use Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp you sheeple

sudahtigabulan3• 11 months ago

In his whistleblower complaint, Baig is requesting reinstatement, back pay and compensatory damages, along with potential regulatory enforcement action against the company.

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...

skybrian• 11 months ago

Maybe so he can quit properly? I wonder how these lawsuits work? Maybe a lawyer would know.

saagarjha3• 11 months ago

Companies are not relationships where once they're your ex they are never worth interacting with ever again. If you are doing good work and then HR pushes you out, then it is reasonable to sue the company to get them to pay you damages and then go back to doing what you were before with the protection that they won't do it again.

sudahtigabulan3• 11 months ago

The point I tried to make was not that he should be resentful about being kicked out, but that he doesn't really care that Meta is unethical and endangers billions.

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.

Nevermark4• 11 months ago

He got fired unjustly. For trying to do something good. (His position.)

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?

sudahtigabulan3• 11 months ago

Nothing, but there's something in your comment that was not in the article:

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.

transcriptase2• 11 months ago

Unsurprising given it’s been an open secret for over a decade that Meta employees will (if you have the right contacts or amount of money), orchestrate banning or seizing long-standing active accounts with desirable usernames and giving them to their friends or the highest bidder.

mikalauskas• 11 months ago

source?

transcriptase2• 11 months ago

Here’s one of many articles about the phenomenon:

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/11/17/meta-disciplined-or-fire...

A related scheme is the existence of brokers who will, for a fee, recover banned or locked accounts. User pays the broker $X, broker pays their contact at Meta $Y, and using internal tooling suddenly a ban or suspension that would normally put someone in an endless loop of automated vague bullshit responses gets restored.

xvector• 11 months ago

WhatsApp engineers could “move or steal user data” including contact information, IP addresses and profile photos “without detection or audit trail”.

So not messages.

United857• 11 months ago

That's rather surprising about the accessing user data bit. When I was at Meta, the quickest way to get fired as an engineer was to access user data/accounts without permission or business reason. Everything was logged/audited down to the database level. Can't imagine that changing and the rules are taught very early on in the onboarding/bootcamp process.

mgh23• 11 months ago

Do you have proof?

YouWhy• 11 months ago

To the extent a random person's evidence on the Internet amounts to proof:

From people at Facebook circa 2018, I know that end user privacy was addressed at multiple checkpoints -- onboarding, the UI of all systems that could theoretically access PII, war stories about senior people being fired due to them marginally misunderstanding the policy, etc.

Note that these friends did not belong to WhatsApp, which was at that time a rather separate suborg.

Jenk• 11 months ago

Does Attaullah Baig?

lysace• 11 months ago

That part of the complaint is specifically about 1500 ”WhatsApp engineers”.

Different culture from the blue app, or whatever they call it?

imiric2• 11 months ago

Whatever Meta says publicly about this topic, and whatever its internal policies may be, directly contradicts its behavior. So any attempt to excuse this is nothing but virtue signalling and marketing.

The privacy violations and complete disregard for user data are too numerous to mention. There's a Wikipedia article that summarizes the ones we publicly know about.

Based on incentives alone, when the company's primary business model is exploiting user data, it's easy to see these events as simple side effects. When the CEO considers users of his products to be "dumb fucks", that culture can only permeate throughout the companies he runs.

testdelacc12• 11 months ago

There’s a meaningful difference in a company wanting to exploit user data to enrich itself and allowing employees to engage in voyeurism. The latter doesn’t make the company money, and therefore can be penalised at no cost.

Your comment talks about incentives, but you haven’t actually made a rational argument tying actual incentives to behaviour.

MrDresden2• 11 months ago

But the crucial bit to know here would be if that data was readable in anyway in case it was accessed?

Personally it doesn't matter if there are auditing systems in place, if the data is readable in any way, shape or form.

dijit2• 11 months ago

is that really true?

I haven’t touched a lot of these cyber security parts of industry: especially policies for awhile…

… but I do recall that auditing was a stronger motivator than preventing. There were policies around checking the audit logs, not being able to alter audit logs and ensuring that nobody really knew exactly what was audited. (Except for a handful of individuals of course.)

I could be wrong, but “observe and report” felt like it was the strongest possible security guarantee available inside the policies we followed (PCI-DSS Tier 1). and that prevention was a nice to have on top.

aprilthird20212• 11 months ago

Everything is logged, but no one really cares, and the "business reasons" are many and extremely generic.

That being said, maybe I'm dumb but I guess I don't see the huge risk here? I could certainly believe that 1500 employees had basically complete access with little oversight (logging and not caring isn't oversight imo). But how is that a safety risk to users? User information is often very important in the day to day work of certain engineering orgs (esp. the large number of eng who are fixing things based off user reports). So that access exists, what's the security risk? That employees will abuse that access? That's always going to be possible I think?

simmerup• 11 months ago

You really don't see the safety risk?

If you have a sister,imagine her being stalked by an employee?

If you have crypto, imagine an employee selling your information to a third party?

1vuio0pswjnm7• 11 months ago

Baig v Meta Platforms, Inc.

Complaint:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.45...

coppsilgold• 11 months ago

When it comes to e2e encryption it's important for the ends to be static (not web apps) and auditable (open source, reproducible builds) because the software running on the ends can trivially compromise anything going trough either of them. It can be as simple as a script being loaded from the server into a runtime such as Lua (closed source app). Or custom javascript delivered (web app).

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.

kelipso• 11 months ago

Wasn’t using Whatsapp that got a bunch of people droned by Israel? You should just assume your metadata at the very least is getting leaked to all US friendly intelligence agencies if you are using a US based service.

neilv2• 11 months ago

Attaullah Baig, who served as head of security for WhatsApp from 2021 to 2025, claims that approximately 1,500 engineers had unrestricted access to user data without proper oversight, potentially violating a US government order that imposed a $5bn penalty on the company in 2020.

If it results in a new billion-dollar penalty, maybe it would've saved money to move him quietly to a cushy rest-and-vest advisory position, in which he's not allowed to see, do, or say anything.

In his whistleblower complaint, Baig is requesting reinstatement, [...]

I don't understand the "reinstatement" part. Does he actually want to go back, and think that it wouldn't be a toxic dynamic?

(He already talked about retaliation. And then by going public the way he did, I'd think he burned that bridge, salted the earth for a mile around bridge, and then nuked the entire metro area from orbit.)

Or is "reinstatement" simply something the lawyers just have to ask for, to ostensibly make him whole, but they actually neither want nor expect that?

7bit• 11 months ago

I don't understand the "reinstatement" part. Does he actually want to go back, and think that it wouldn't be a toxic dynamic?

Maybe he's just laying a foundation for an upcoming legal dispute?

Nevermark4• 11 months ago

It means he would prefer to be paid to not be reinstated.

But until he is paid, his position is that he wants to be reinstated.

jnsaff2• 11 months ago

Or is "reinstatement" simply something the lawyers just have to ask for, to ostensibly make him whole, but they actually neither want nor expect that?

“Reinstatement” is usually a legal formality in whistleblower cases: lawyers ask for it because the law says the remedy for retaliation is to make the employee whole, and it strengthens the case even if nobody expects it to happen. In reality, returning to the job is almost never feasible, so the request mostly serves as leverage for a financial settlement.

pfortuny• 11 months ago

You ask to be reinstated so that the financial settelment is higher (it includes the cost of sacking him).

blitzar• 11 months ago

Dont whistlebowers get a percentage cut of the fine?

In the United States, whistleblowers typically receive a percentage of the money collected by the government, ranging from 10% to 30% of fines or penalties.

tencentshill• 11 months ago

Now that penalty is a weapon for the president to use when he's mad at Zuckerberg.

tamimio2• 11 months ago

I never trusted fecebook which is why I never created an account or used any of its products (old Instagram placeholder only), except last year, I made a small startup and wanted to use Instagram to promote it. Despite using the other old account to avoid potential false flagging as spam, immediately after creating it I got banned and had to submit a personal picture holding a book or whatever to verify I am real. I did that although it's not a personal account. Regardless, a few seconds after submitting the picture and verifying my number it got permanently banned. So far this is understandable, maybe it's all an automated process which is expected. However, I wanted to get in touch with support, in any form or shape, only to find out that there's none, and apparently the only way to actually fix something within fecebook is knowing someone who knows someone who works there. LOL, really big LOL!! A company that size operating like an underground syndicate is a total joke and totally untrustworthy. Bottom line: Never trust anything from fecebook, no matter what they say, do not.

tgsovlerkhgsel2• 11 months ago

including contact information, IP addresses and profile photos “without detection or audit trail”.

As many holes as WhatsApp's "E2E" encryption has, this shows how valuable it still is. It's all metadata, not message content.

daryl_martis• 11 months ago

Muck Feta

_DeadFred_• 11 months ago

If a company can become a mega company by having billions of users, small violations must be treated as larger. At some point impacting millions/hundreds of millions of human years a year by your practices rises above the 'it's a small inconvenience to a single person'.

You are costing society/humanity millions/hundred of millions of human years. That is not a 'small inconvenience' at this scale.

Ex-WhatsApp cybersecurity head says Meta endangered billions of users

Related Stories