Slashdot Mirror
The Guardian Reveals That Whisper App Tracks "Anonymous" Users
New submitter qqod writes this story at The Guardian that raises privacy concerns over the Whisper app. "The company behind Whisper, the social media app that promises users anonymity and claims to be the “the safest place on the internet”, is tracking the location of its users, including some who have specifically asked not to be followed. The practice of monitoring the whereabouts of Whisper users – including those who have expressly opted out of geolocation services – will alarm users, who are encouraged to disclose intimate details about their private and professional lives. Whisper is also sharing information with the US Department of Defense gleaned from smartphones it knows are used from military bases, and developing a version of its app to conform with Chinese censorship laws."
Looks like I WILL NOT be trying this app at all. I was a bit curious.
We could have been so good together
We could have lived this dance forever
It's getting to the point where you can't trust anything these days, because the NSA or other criminals seem to have access to your data.
And remember, the FBI head dude doesn't want you to use encryption.
Is this the America we are supposed to be proud of?
Be seeing you...
When I tell you that privacy policies are pure BS? It doesn't matter if it's Whisper, Apple, or Google. They are tracking you, probably under orders. We won't know, unless we rearrange the house!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
There are a few websites/apps that have allow the user to opt out of being tracked.
Have ANY of these sites/apps actually respected the request of the user? Google certainly did not care, and neither do many others in Internet advertising.
So, why can't they be sued into the ground for product misrepresentation ? There needs to be cases like that with hard jail time before the practise will stop (ha! As if).
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Any business depends on profit to survive, and there is no profit to be had in providing privacy...and certainly not privacy without a fee. A fee of course means a method of payment, and every method of payment is traceable to some extent. Even totally volunteer systems are no guarantee of privacy, as governments are certain to be the first to volunteer.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
TRUST NO ONE!
Tracking without the consent of the user is illegal wiretapping. The responsible persons at "whisper" should prepare for criminal law suits against them.
"He’s a guy that we’ll track for the rest of his life and he’ll have no idea we’ll be watching him," the same Whisper executive said.
Pro-tip: The people who scream the loudest about privacy and anonymity, but won't show you their source: these are the honeypots. And agent provocateurs. If someone's pushing you to do something for no good reason, perhaps you should ignore them.
Okay, NSA, we heard you.. we'll get right on that.
"Sorry, we shut down Project Minaret. We don't do that anymore."
Closed source? Check.
Commercial? Check.
Being hawked after the latest revelation that some other commercial and closed source app promising privacy was doing exactly the opposite? Check.
Go fuck yourself.
then do not speak them.
You have a right to free speech (or perhaps a lesser equivalent outside the U.S.) You never had a right to be free from the consequences of your speech. You also do not have a right to anonymity, or to a privacy attached to words that you have delivered outside of your control. You have no right to be free of your own foolishness, if you choose to act like a fool.
That said, this company might get it's backside sued off by a class action lawsuit if it can be shown that it was tracking its clients without their consent or against their wishes. I'll bet that in at least in one state there's a law prohibiting that, even if there's a clause in their license or contract that permits it (which apparently their new terms of service has.) Extraordinary terms in a contract are not necessarily enforced, as any first year law school student can tell you.
Any data gleaned by such measures would likely be ruled to be inadmissible in a criminal action: it is merely the government attempting to use a third party to engage in an unreasonable search and seizure. It might be a stupid thing for a soldier to use this app on a military base against regulations, but the government would be even more stupid to try to use "the fruit of the poisonous tree" (evidence that would not have been gathered but for the unlawful search) against one of its citizens.
All of this goes to show that you can't stop others from being stupid...
Rather than helping The Man, perhaps the Slashdot editor could put an update on the front page to make it clear this "Whisper" app is nothing to do with Moxie Marlinspike's Open Whisper Systems. I suspect the app name is no coincidence and the fact that it is nefarious was deliberately leaked in order to undermine confidence in Moxie's good apps. The least Slashdot could do is to ensure the difference is made clear.
But that would require the editors actually doing something......
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2014/10/16/secret-sharing-app-whisper-to-the-guardian-you-published-a-pack-of-vicious-lies-about-us/
Whisper, darling child of the online anonymity surge, is going to war with the Guardian over a story saying the app tracks the identities and locations of some users.
Launched two years ago, Whisper says it’s the “safest place on the internet,” a social networking app that lets people anonymously share short messages — “whispers” — supposedly detached from any identifiable information.
But in a lengthy takedown published Thursday, the Guardian claims otherwise, saying Whisper uses a handful of tools to subvert its own claims of privacy and anonymity. Whisper, according to the Guardian report, tracks newsworthy users and uses roundabout methods of finding out the locations of users who decline to share it; the company then shares that information with third parties, including the U.S. government, the Guardian reported.
The outlet also said the app changed its privacy policy after it was made aware that the Guardian’s story would run.
All of these claims, Whisper officials said, are patently false.
Whisper’s editor-in-chief, Neetzan Zimmerman, went into attack mode immediately after the story was published, saying it was a “pack of vicious lies” and that “the Guardian made a mistake posting that story and they will regret it.”
Reached by phone, Zimmerman categorically denied the basis of the story, saying that while certain degrees of tracking (such as a city of location) are possible through simply connecting to the Internet, the methods the Guardian described are “either outright false or misguided or misinformed.”
“Clearly, their intention was for absolutely no reason to write a hit piece about us and try to scare away our users,” Zimmerman said, sounding irate at times.
The Guardian story describes techniques that Whisper allegedly uses to find “newsworthy” users, such as those who work at Yahoo and Disney, or on Capitol Hill. It also says there is a technical backdoor that allows Whisper to pinpoint the location of users who have declined to share their location with the app, and that Zimmerman and another executive had requested staff to exploit it.
But Zimmerman, fuming at the accusations, said such backdoors are “technically impossible.”
“That is false, that is 100 percent false,” he said. “That was never said by anyone. I have no idea where that quote came from. I have no idea what they’re talking about. I have never, ever, ever asked anybody in my life, and would never ask anybody, for information on a user who opted out of user location. That cannot be overemphasized. That is a 100 percent lie.”
He added that no change was made to the app’s privacy policy as a response to the Guardian’s story. (Still, my colleague Brian Fung noted that any changes to a privacy policy may invite inquiry from the FTC.)
Whisper employees can, however, search for keywords (analogous to a Twitter search) to find users and their “whispers” that may be interesting to some of its media partners, including BuzzFeed, which publishes an ongoing series of posts that highlight interesting or newsworthy messages on the service.
A BuzzFeed spokesman told Valleywag on Thursday: “We’re taking a break from our partnership until Whisper clarifies to us and its users the policy on user location and privacy.”
Zimmerman also said the Guardian has had a months-long partnership with Whisper that used the very techniques the article decries.
“There are at least three Guardian stories written off Whisper, and two of which we
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
AC: have you ever heard of a diary? Do you ever prepare advanced drafts of your tax return? Have you ever had the occasion to speak to an attorney? There are three examples of words not delivered outside of your control.
If you send messages through this "Whisper App" to your friends, then the government has every right to ask those friends what you said. (It's called "investigating", in case you didn't know.)
There is no explicit constitutional right to privacy. Look for it all you want: you won't find it. There is only a prohibition against "unreasonable" searches and seizures. The meaning of the word unreasonable has been defined in the caselaw by the courts over the decades; in some cases the police and the government do get to smell your dirty shorts. Your baggage will be searched at the airport, in one example, because the "right" to privacy that you think you have is unreasonable against the danger you might pose to the other passengers.
I'm not trying to "launch" anything, stupid. I'm just stating the way the law is. But I'd really prefer that you don't listen to me, AC: I'd really enjoy watching you pay attorney's fees up the wazoo defending your point of view...
There is no explicit constitutional right to privacy. Look for it all you want: you won't find it.
There doesn't need to be. The constitution is a whitelist of things the government can do, not a blacklist of things it can't.
Your baggage will be searched at the airport, in one example, because the "right" to privacy that you think you have is unreasonable against the danger you might pose to the other passengers.
We're supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.' Free and brave people would not sacrifice fundamental liberties and allow worthless government thugs to search everyone at airports in the name of safety.
So while the courts may often be complicit in the crimes against the American people, that by no means means that their interpretation of the constitution is the correct one. Often, they ignore the spirit of the constitution and even sometimes the words themselves in favor of letting the government do as it pleases. Were the spirit of the constitution considered, the government wouldn't be able to get just any information about you just because it's stored by some third party, and no individual with a brain would ever think that them doing this is a good thing.
I'm just stating the way the law is.
Which is pretty useless, because most people criticize the way the law is or criticize judges' interpretations of it. But it looks more like you're stating what others think the law is, which is even more useless, since those people are often hated for promoting police states.
I blame the mobile OS vendors for this, especially in case of Android. A modern mobile OS must give full control for the user to understand and control which apps are accessing which data services. The user should be able to have a log of all these requests. The user should be able to wire fake data sources to these apps. There are very few apps that I would trust with my contacts list, account names and location information. Cyanogen Mod is working towards this and Google's attempts to acquire it do not engender any trust. The last company with legitimate use for Cyanogen Mod would be Google.
Oh, I see. I have to accept your personal view.
You know, there is a reason that we have these things called "judges": they are there to avoid would-be monarchs such as you from applying their own, independent law. No one would be free under your version.
AC: you seem to be a bit mixed up about this:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that comment about "parallel construction". Perhaps you're commenting about something else.
There's nobody making you use a cell phone. If you don't like how you're being treated (either by the phone company or by the government), you can always use a landline. I don't know where you're getting your facts from.
The FISA courts won't try or convict you of a crime, nor will they put you in prison. From what I've heard, they will only issue a warrant ex-parte if the government can show a threshold risk to national security.
I'm shilling for people who want the truth and fair discussion of the involvement of their government. Ignoramuses like you are the problem.
You know, there is a reason that we have these things called "judges": they are there to avoid would-be monarchs such as you from applying their own, independent law.
You are appealing to authority. Just because judges say something doesn't make it right. If judges interpreted the first amendment to mean that the government has the power to murder anyone without any due process, obviously their interpretation would be incorrect, even if all judges kept interpreting it that way.
There is no such single tribunal. In the US, it is ultimately up to The People to make sure the government follows the constitution. Judges will eventually be replaced and hopefully ones who respect the constitution will replace them, and with enough effort, politicians can be reigned in, and amendments can be created (perhaps to better enforce the constitution).
Mindless individuals who feel that everything judges do is correct have no place in 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.' Or maybe, contrary to what you have said, you agree with the current state of affairs, and are not just telling others how the law is?
No one would be free under your version.
They'd be more free than under the reign of corrupt judges. Unless you think that privacy leads to a police state, but that would be strange.
I do not want to be a monarch; I want the government to follow the constitution, which includes its spirit.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that comment about "parallel construction".
It means they don't need to use the information directly against you in court; they can just use parallel construction, which we already know they do in many cases.
There's nobody making you use a cell phone. If you don't like how you're being treated (either by the phone company or by the government), you can always use a landline.
And the government will still violate your privacy in a million other ways. If you don't want that to happen, don't get on planes, (some for now) buses, (some, for now) trains, and don't screw around anywhere near the border. Isn't it nice how, in a supposedly free country, so many options are unavailable to you if you want to keep your privacy? And I'm sure this is perfectly fine with you, being a raging authoritarian and all.
Yeah, just tell people not to use those things. It's not like it's nearly impossible to avoid interacting with third parties that the government retrieves information from, right? Under these nonsensical rules, just about any company can just hand over information about you, and there's nothing you can do about it.
From what I've heard, they will only issue a warrant ex-parte if the government can show a threshold risk to national security.
Right. The rubberstamping court. All the while the NSA collects people's "metadata" en masse. But it's okay, because they have deals with (or have threatened) third parties. Now that's Small Government for you!
"You are appealing to authority. Just because judges say something doesn't make it right."
And just because you say it doesn't make it right. Which do you think I'm going to trust more. A judge, or you?
is code you can download, review and modify. The moment a third party or a internet based service is involved, there can be on trust.
-- $G
And just because you say it doesn't make it right.
I never said that it did.
Which do you think I'm going to trust more. A judge, or you?
The constitution, maybe? Arguments stand on their own merit. There is no need to trust me or a judge.
"If judges interpreted the first amendment to mean that the government has the power to murder anyone without any due process, obviously their interpretation would be incorrect, even if all judges kept interpreting it that way."
But hey, knowing you, I'm sure you'd put all your faith in the judge. Constitution be damned.
Wait... are you by any chance studying under cold fjord, one of the greatest superheroes of the modern age!? Everything would make sense. You're trying to save us all from those pesky individual liberties.
It would be nice if you'd get your concepts straight and use proper terminology. I think by "parallel construction" you mean "independent discovery": a prosecutor gets to use evidence against you collected independently from illegally-collected evidence.
You don't have a right to be anonymous to the government. Your "right to privacy" does not mean the government has to erase you from all their databases. That is what is nonsensical.
And you claimed that the FISA court would put you in prison. I guess that you've changed your mind.
Does the FISA court rubber-stamp warrants? Nobody in the public really knows, because it's a secret court. That is what I find wrong about that court...
You don't have a right to be anonymous to the government. Your "right to privacy" does not mean the government has to erase you from all their databases. That is what is nonsensical.
What is nonsensical is you ignoring my post, ignoring what my actual position is, and ignoring and all the implications your stupid position has. But making it impossible to have any privacy because the government has the power to get any information from third parties is actually a good thing, because 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' is all about bravely giving up freedoms to the government so it can be free to do as it pleases.
And you claimed that the FISA court would put you in prison.
No, I didn't.
"Whisper’s policy toward sharing user data with law enforcement has prompted it on occasions to provide information to both the FBI and MI5. Both cases involved potentially imminent threats to life, Whisper said, a practice standard in the tech industry."
That sounds like investigating to me, and although you might not consider Whisper to be your friend, the government doesn't care whether it is or not.
So you think because I didn't bother to counter your argument (about wiretapping), that you've somehow proven a grand right to privacy? HAHAHAHA!
Parallel construction: hey, I'll admit I had to look that one up. But if the government can find an independent source of evidence to convict the bad guy that doesn't involve illegally-collected evidence, then they haven't violated his rights (at least as to the crime charged). You can put a negative label on it if you like, but the cops get to do it.
I'm not going to bother with you any more, Mr. Jones. Enjoy your fantasy...
And you claimed that the FISA court would put you in prison.
No, I didn't.
Ooooh, I just can't resist:
"And besides, who needs to use a criminal action in open court when we have the secret FISA courts with secret laws and a prison where everything done is in secret? This is police state 101."
Oh, and please say one more time for us: 'the land of the free and the home of the brave'.
You're doing a pretty crappy job of concealing your identity, for someone who supposedly cares so much about his privacy.
Wow. You claim that because the government overstepped a defendant's rights in collecting evidence on one occasion, that that evidence is excluded forever no matter how the government might get it?
My advice to you is: don't ever try to go to law school. You will fail.
Hold on a moment, let me find my surprised look. I have it around here somewhere. Oh! Here it is. *GASP!* Say it isn't so!
I'm not certain why this is at all a surprise to anyone. Perhaps the app was poorly named, perhaps it should have been the Gossip app instead?
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
Parallel construction: hey, I'll admit I had to look that one up. But if the government can find an independent source of evidence to convict the bad guy that doesn't involve illegally-collected evidence, then they haven't violated his rights (at least as to the crime charged). [emphasis mine]
Are you SURE you are a lawyer? If so, you must not be a very good one. They most certainly HAVE violated his rights regardless if evidence is admitted.
Yes, I am. Not all illegal methods of collecting evidence violate the rights of the accused against unconstitutional searches and seizures. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying the prosecution is allowed to introduce evidence against the accused if he can show the independent source.
That is all.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Neetzan, not Phil. Totally different people.
Looks like the NSA has published an app to the appStore.
Who would have thought that such an innocuous "secret" app would be non-secret. The fools! The government will find you, and track you - there is no way around it. It's a conspiracy, man!.
And what better way than to appeal to one's vanity and build an app to let you complain. Social Engineering at its best.
I made no mention of violated rights being limited to fourth amendment seizures. If the state has to break laws to investigate someone, their rights ARE violated.
Not in dispute.
I made no mention of violated rights being limited to fourth amendment seizures. If the state has to break laws to investigate someone, their rights ARE violated.
Unless the method violated someone else's rights, or violated an inconsequential rule or regulation.
I always thought that a site that promises true anonymity and has a lucrative set of transparent terms and services for not tracking its users seemed more like a honeypot made by Big Brother. E.g. when Hushmail was the big deal of the day i got paranoid it might be funded by the NSA, and i don't even have to hide anything. My online footprint is pretty-much unique and if someone wants he could easily track me etc. "Hushmail, a longtime provider of encrypted web-based email, markets itself by saying that "not even a Hushmail employee with access to our servers can read your encrypted e-mail, since each message is uniquely encoded before it leaves your computer." But it turns out that statement seems not to apply to individuals targeted by government agencies that are able to convince a Canadian court to serve a court order on the company." Also Lastpass and the like - i am afraid of a breach.... I prefer off cloud storing of the kdbs files and manually syncing them or sync them via Drop box, or other third parity cloud service.
It's really too bad that you're not the authority on this subject: your solution is so simple-minded. Not that I expect it will do much good for you, but here's a place you could get a little understanding of one exception to the exclusionary rule:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Williams
We're supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.' Free and brave people would not sacrifice fundamental liberties and allow worthless government thugs to search everyone at airports in the name of safety.
You might want to re-read the 4th Amendment and then pick up a history book.
The Founding Fathers have always considered border searches reasonable.
The first Congress passed a law about it in 1789.
To avoid summarizing 225 years of jurisprudence, I'll give the broad outlines of what isn't a reasonable border search.
1. Anything personally invasive or painful: strip searches, body cavity searches, x-rays, surgery
2. Destructive searches of property
3. Lengthy detention
And that's pretty much it.
You've never had an expectation of privacy at the border.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
You might want to re-read the 4th Amendment and then pick up a history book.
You might want to read up on "constitution-free zones," because they're sure as hell not just at the border.
Now, personally, I'd like a constitutional amendment restricting the government's powers at the border, but that's another matter. And wait, I know I mentioned something about being "anywhere near the border" in another post, but I don't see it in the post you're replying to.
You've never had an expectation of privacy at the border.
You debunk your statement in your own post. You do have some degree of privacy. Let me quote you:
"To avoid summarizing 225 years of jurisprudence, I'll give the broad outlines of what isn't a reasonable border search.
1. Anything personally invasive or painful: strip searches, body cavity searches, x-rays, surgery
2. Destructive searches of property
3. Lengthy detention"
I consider those to be rules that protect your privacy to some extent. Don't you?
Oh, if you're trying to equate the TSA with border searches, don't even bother.
Now that I think about it, plenty of judges are so thick that we probably need a constitutional amendment that clarifies all of this. The TSA, border searches, the NSA's mass surveillance, DUI checkpoints, etc.
Yeah. I thought that one would go over your head. QED.
I fail to see that rights are not violated for the accused irrespective of any others who may also be violated.
Rules and regulations of any import are ALWAYS considered inconsequential by those who choose to ignore them.
The words "social media app" and "anonymity" in the same sentence? What could possibly go wrong?
"Zimmerman also said the Guardian has had a months-long partnership with Whisper that used the very techniques the article decries."
Would that be the technically impossible ones or the ones they would NEVER use?
"Power to the .... err -- to those in power.