Freedom Chat Responds to TechCrunch's Biased Article
In this post, we respond to a recent article published about us by TechCrunch. The message below is from our Founder and CEO, Tanner Haas.
TechCrunch Didn’t Publish My Response About Freedom Chat — So I’m Publishing It Here
TechCrunch — a website I used to respect, and believed operated on merit rather than pre-conceived political ideology — is the second most visited tech site in the U.S. by traffic. So when they reached out with concerns about Freedom Chat, we took it seriously.
How it Started
On December 4th, journalist Zack Whittaker (who signs his prefered pronouns next to his name) contacted us about what he labeled “security vulnerabilities.” He noted:
• That user PINs were appearing in network traffic along with user phone numbers
• That our contact discovery could theoretically be brute-forced — the same type of test the University of Vienna recently performed on WhatsApp
I thanked him for bringing this to our attention and we began investigating it immediately.
Addressing the Feedback
Within hours we:
• Patched the PIN-exposure issue
• Reset all user PINs
• Released an iOS and Android update (after platform approval) notifying users and prompting them to create a new PIN
What I Told TechCrunch About Freedom Chat That They Didn't Publish
Here is one of the responses I sent to Zack — a factual clarification he never referenced in his article and he absolutely should have:
“Regarding the PIN matter specifically: while the exposure is not ideal and will be corrected with celerity, it is important to note that Freedom Chat does not support linked devices. Even with both a PIN and phone number, private conversations cannot be accessed or decrypted on a new device—messages remain unreadable outside the originally authorized device and don’t transfer over.”
Let me reiterate:
Freedom Chat does not support linked devices.
This means:
• Even if someone has a user’s phone number
• Even if they have the user’s PIN
• Even if they attempt to log in on a second device (they’d still need the SMS verification code message)
Nothing decrypts.
Conversations do not transfer.
It’s simply a blank chat.
This was deliberately designed to protect user privacy and is unique to Freedom Chat. Why didn’t TechCrunch mention that?
A Concerning Tone Shift
I had suspicions about this being a potential “hit piece” and my concern only grew when Zack later emailed me the following:
“Given that this is an active security incident, do you plan to take the service down? For how long have you been aware of these vulnerabilities? When do you plan to reset user PINs? Will you provide a copy of the communication you plan to send to your users?”
The framing made it clear the story was already being shaped — and not around accuracy.
Freedom Chat's Full and Unpublished Response to TechCrunch
Below is my full, unedited reply — the one TechCrunch chose NOT to print:
Zack,
Thanks again for reaching out and for your interest in Freedom Chat. As we prepare for a broader rollout beyond our initial influencer launch, your feedback has helped accelerate improvements already in progress.
Our team quickly patched the backend update that inadvertently exposed user PINs in a system response shortly after you alerted us. All user PINs were reset, and we pushed an iOS and Android update with a clear notice explaining the reset and prompting users to create a new PIN.
Regarding your question about taking the service down: to me, the question is non-sensical and makes me question the motive behind your reporting. As I explained previously, Freedom Chat does not support linked devices in any way.
As the New York Post and Washington Examiner have accurately reported, linked devices are a potential security vulnerability in competing apps. On Freedom Chat, if someone attempts to log in on a second device, the original device is logged out and alerted. None of the user’s prior conversations decrypt or transfer. They simply aren’t there. It’s a blank chat.
On the phone-number exposure: we have already patched roughly 25 percent of the backend instances where numbers appeared. We are now beginning a full migration to a contact-hash system where the app hashes contacts locally, matching is done locally, and phone numbers will disappear entirely from remote communication.
On enumerability: following the Vienna research into WhatsApp, we were already preparing stricter rate limiting and scope constraints. As a small startup in controlled rollout, the risk profile is materially different from a platform with billions of users, though we take it seriously and continue to improve. We aim to have something released there early this week.
I think it’s important to emphasize the core security protections that define Freedom Chat. We provide verifiable end-to-end encryption and protect against man-in-the-middle attacks. We do not store messages on our servers — once delivered, they’re removed. We prevent screenshots and screen recordings. We allow users to edit, unsend, and self-destruct messages. And unlike competitors, we have no commercial use of user data. These principles are foundational, and as you can see, are sound.
Since you cover the broader tech landscape, I’d also like to add a personal note. TechCrunch has long championed diversity and inclusion in tech, and I hope that extends to underrepresented independent-minded Americans in tech as well. Freedom Chat was built on the belief that independent thought deserves a place in technology. Like many founders, I’ve put my blood, sweat, and tears into this company. I’m incredibly proud of what our small team has achieved competing against companies with virtually unlimited funding.
If your story aims to highlight where an early-stage startup is iterating, strengthening its system, and continuing to improve while offering genuinely strong privacy protections that Big Tech platforms do not, that is fair reporting. If the intent is to try and break a startup or frame normal hardening work as something “catastrophic,” that’s a very different narrative — and in my mind, very unfair and biased reporting.
Either way, we’ll keep working, improving, persisting, and doing right by our users.
Sincerely,
Tanner
Founder & CEO, Freedom Chat
Final Thoughts
I think Freedom Chat must be onto something. If the number-two ranked tech site in the U.S. wants to scrutinize a startup private messaging app they claim has only “2,000 users” (a completely inaccurate number based solely on the new users who were automatically subscribed to the Freedom Chat channel upon signup — something we only recently implemented but which they didn’t bother to confirm), that tells me we’ve struck a nerve.
And if they chose not to include my response — or any mention of our strongest privacy and security protections — that says even more.
It’s also worth noting that one of the “researchers” TechCrunch chose to reference publicly mocked me for self-publishing motivational books at 18 and 19 (since I guess that’s something to make fun of?), commented on my political views (including the belief that only natural-born citizens should be eligible to run for office in the US—I think that’s pretty reasonable), and mocked conservatives for wanting screenshot protection. When personal commentary of that nature is part of the narrative, it should raise legitimate questions about neutrality and objectivity in the reporting.
Nonetheless, as I mentioned in my response to TechCrunch, we’ll keep working, improving, persisting, and doing right by our users.
About Freedom Chat
Freedom Chat is a next-generation private messenger with no tracking, no screenshots, and no linked devices. Your messages are end-to-end encrypted, never stored on our servers, and never used for commercial gain.