Monolois OP wrote (edited )
True, but but few of us are actually targeted by national security agents.
While that's true, I think we are well aware that the vulnerabilities installed by national security agents are the targets of malicious non-state associated actors, including those who are fundamental privacy advocates. Consider when the big equation group story came out. At that time most of the vulnerabilities being released were still actual live 0 day exploits. I think it came to public eye partly because of "Da Flame" being identified during the Iranian centrifuge attacks documented in 2012.
This is a flawed and just plain strange article.
Monolois OP wrote
Hmmm, could you elaborate? Seems like an alright article to me.
It entirely takes the descriptions of the apps at face value, does not actualy analyze bugs or problems with the code, and then ranks them by saying "yeah most all of them are secure, except for facebook messenger which you just need to tweak some settings on and you're good"
Beyond government surveillance, the corporate platforms like facebook etc are absolutely not private or secure applications, they are black boxes of proprietary code packaged for mass automated tracking. That's why they're given to people for free by a for-profit US company.
That's why I say this is a strange article. It adds nothing of substance, and is just meant to make people feel "safe" with communicating on smartphones which are compromised in just about every way imaginable. The article does this via the branding of these various petit bourgeois apps, a perfect example of neoliberalism.
Just my two cents.
Depends on how secure is defined... Your private keys are unlikely to be safe against a national security associated signals intelligence organization so ultimately none of the services are fully secure