I'm not sure if this article was posted for us to have a chuckle at, or as a serious thing.
Nothing proprietary can be considered truly secure because the government can just force its way into it.
At least that's what I think he's saying.
Care to elaborate on that? Because I don't think there's any law right now, not even CALEA, that demands a backdoor in a chat application. That's not to say Whatasapp won't willingly add such a backdoor, but I don't think anything legal forces them to do it. FBI has been lobbying for the past few years to pass such as a law, though, which is for now unsuccessful, fortunately.
I'd say wait a year or so after Whatsapp enables this and for iOS, too. If we won't hear anything from the US, Saudi, Indian or Chinese governments about how angry they are at Whatsapp's new encryption, then we should start to become very suspicious about that encryption. Because this should make them at least as angry as full disk encryption made FBI. Heck, the Saudi gov was even pissed off at Whatsapp's HTTPS encryption.
"FISA was modified by section 215 (Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) to allow the Director of the FBI (or an official designated by the Director, so long as that official's rank is no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) to apply for an order to produce materials that assist in an investigation undertaken to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. The act specifically gives an example to clarify what it means by "tangible things": it includes "books, records, papers, documents, and other items".
So yes, they have to provide access to the records they have, which is a big reason why end-to-end crypto is rolled out in the first place. If the records don't contain any decryption keys, the content of messages is safe. All other metadata (sender, receiver, timestamp, message size) is not, since it's needed for delivery.
