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!”
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.
"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...
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!!!
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.
Tracking without the consent of the user is illegal wiretapping. The responsible persons at "whisper" should prepare for criminal law suits against them.
1. You are tracked every day without your consent. Have you ever examined an email header? It contains these magical things called "usernames", "domain names", "timestamps" and "IP addresses" that authenticate who you are and when you did things. Do you ever drive a car? Then you have to present your license (containing your identity) to any officer who asks. Ever send an SMS message? Do you ever carry your phone around with you turned on so you can receive a call? Got a pass for the bus? Your "illegal wiretapping" is a fantasy.
2. Do you really think the same government that is asking for and/or collecting this data is going to prosecute the provider?
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.
"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?