Having a harder, unofficial way currently and soon an easy, official one is corrupt?

Thank you a lot, this is great information!

You could read a bit about NAT, which your router does, if you want to know more. But yes, of course only the initiation requires an open port, otherwise like you said, it doesn’t make sense. As soon as a connection is established your router knows where packets should be sent and an “open” port is not necessary.

This image somehow is such low quality on my device that I can’t read any of the text on it.

I understand they have access to all this information you listed, but what do they gain from that if I don’t use any (other) Facebook services? Normally, I understand that it allows for better ad targeting, but WhatsApp does not have ads, and if I don’t use any other Meta services that actually serve ads, how could this info being out be a problem for me?

How do I know other browsers/messengers actually include the code that is published when they arrive on my phone? Wouldn’t it be possible to simply add tracking/malicious code outside of the open-source repository, build an APK from it and put that on the Play Store instead of the “clean” code on the repository?

What use is this knowledge through metadata to them? Let’s say I have no Facebook account and no other apps by Meta. There are no ads within WhatsApp. What do they gain by having this data about me?

Thank you, but I’m looking for actual arguments that would sway someone that is trying to come to a rational conclusion. “The reputation of the company is bad” is of course valid evidence, but it would be much more interesting to know what Facebook actually gains from having users on WhatsApp.

Are others different, like Signal and how do I know?

As a normal user I install both in exactly the same way, I have no way to verify that the code of the apk on the play store is exactly the same as the code published by Signal as open-source. How could I trust Signal more?

That’s why I said (basically). If another user has a port open and you connect to them through their open port, a bidirectional connection gets established and then you can also upload. But if the other user also didn’t have a port open, then BitTorrent wouldn’t work. You rely on other people to have ports open, if everyone was using mullvad, then it would stop working.

That’s why I said (basically). If another user has a port open and you connect to them through their open port, a bidirectional connection gets established and then you can also upload. But if the other user also didn’t have a port open, then BitTorrent wouldn’t work. You rely on other people to have ports open, if everyone was using mullvad, then it would stop working.

It’s not that simple. Who hosts that server? Which torrent clients implemented support for it? What about symmetric NATs?

In short: no. In long: read up on it yourself.

The BitTorrent protocol basically works like this when you download a torrent:

1. a tracker has a list of clients that have some data of a torrent
2. you want to download that torrent, so you ask the tracker for this list
3. after you receive this list, you ask the clients on this list to upload their data to you
4. repeat 3. until you have the whole torrent

As soon as you have something downloaded, you become a client on the list of the tracker that theoretically has the torrent available for others. So you would become the “client being asked” of step 3 as well.

But how can you be asked? In a P2P networking context, you can only “be asked” if you have a port open that allows connections to it. Otherwise it’s as if you gave people your home adress but your mailbox has a hole on the bottom that leads directly to the garbage can beneath it, so all mail is immediately lost. Completely unusable.

In other words, it’s (basically) impossible for you to send the torrent data to someone else. You’re a leecher, someone that doesn’t give back to others. If everyone would act like you, torrents wouldn’t work at all.

No port forwarding.