Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WhatsApp To Share Some Data With Facebook (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on from the privacy-woes dept.

Two years ago when Facebook bought WhatsApp, the instant messaging client said that the deal would not affect the digital privacy of its users. Things are changing now, WhatsApp said Thursday. The Facebook-owned app will share with the company some member information, as well as some analytics data of its users. Bloomberg reports: WhatsApp announced a change to its privacy policy today that allows businesses to communicate with users. The messages could include appointment reminders, delivery and shipping notifications or marketing material, the company said in its revised terms of service. In a blog post, WhatsApp said it will be testing these business features over the coming months. The strategy is an important step for Facebook as it attempts to make money from its most expensive acquisition. In addition to the messages from businesses, WhatsApp said it would begin sharing more information about its users with the "Facebook family." The data, including a person's phone number, could be used to better targets ads when browsing Facebook or Instagram, WhatsApp said.

103 comments

  1. "Some" data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Try all the data. Privacy is dead, and has been for quite a while.

    1. Re:"Some" data? by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is why mergers and buyouts are such a problem. People need to start boycotting companies that do this kind of thing. Also time to bring back anti-trust laws and break up any companies that are "too big to fail".

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    2. Re: "Some" data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quit Facebook in 2006 and what's WhatsApp... ?

    3. Re:"Some" data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The majority of my friends aren't geeks. What really weirds me out is that they say they wouldn't tell their friends everything about their private lives, but if I tell them that IT admins with access to their entire online life are just people like me, their eyes glaze over.

      I try to explain it in simple terms: You don't want me to know this private stuff about you - but in my professional capacity I have access to all this information about you. There are numerous examples of governments with political agendas or individuals with personal agendas abusing access to private information. You are relying on the fact that you will never knowingly or unknowingly get on the wrong side of anybody in that position.

      But still, blank.

      I don't know how to explain it to people. I mean when I was a kid life was simpler, as actions were less likely to have consequences: I'd just go into l33t hax0r mode and obtain files from their machine / school computer account and then show them what I can do. They'd feel embarrassed and I'd teach them a bit about basic security. But as an adult and in this "post-9/11" world of fear, I wouldn't dare take that approach.

      I just don't know what to do.

    4. Re:"Some" data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Privacy is only dead if you are a moron.

    5. Re:"Some" data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Privacy is only dead for the people who go to extra trouble to lose their privacy. In this particular case, it was totally user-controlled opt-out.

      It was always a stupid-sounding idea to use Whatsapp (I mean that as a totally independent fact, relative to whether or not Whatsapp was actually any good or not). From the very beginning, it was just someone's proprietary app that used an undocumented protocol. Nobody who is trying to do things right, is going to use anything like that.

      When you're considering a communications tool, the first question is: what protocol does it use? Second: What competing implementations does it interoperate with? If those questions don't have satisfactory answers, then: NEXT! Whatsapp never got past the initial hurdles.

    6. Re:"Some" data? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It was always a stupid-sounding idea to use Whatsapp (I mean that as a totally independent fact, relative to whether or not Whatsapp was actually any good or not). From the very beginning, it was just someone's proprietary app that used an undocumented protocol. Nobody who is trying to do things right, is going to use anything like that.

      Of the proprietary messengers, WhatsApp was the least bad. It was founded by people who grew up in the Soviet Union and left with an abiding hatred of surveillance, had a very strong privacy policy, and did end-to-end encryption. Also, using Erlang on FreeBSD, it had a lot of geek cred. Unfortunately, when Facebook bought it there wasn't much chance of it keeping the philosophy of the founders. On the plus side, they did donate $1m from the sale price to the FreeBSD Foundation.

      I used to be a big advocate of XMPP, but it's largely been mismanaged into the ground by a lack of leadership in the standards body and a lack of decent reference implementations for the client side. Tox seems like the best bet at the moment for producing something that is both secure and open, yet with implementations that you can give to normal humans and get them connected.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:"Some" data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just a law that requires affirmative consent to privacy policy changes before they can take effect?

    8. Re:"Some" data? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I'm on WhatsApp but not on FaceBook. So if WhatsApp gives my data to FaceBook, who will the latter associate it w/?

      P.S. Reminder to self - delete the email from WhatsApp

    9. Re:"Some" data? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ...People need to start boycotting companies that do this kind of thing.

      The vast majority of people don't care and don't want to know. They've been trained from birth to not be analytical and to follow the herd. For those in power, making "the people" feel powerless is good; making them feel that everything is OK and that they have neither need nor desire for power, is even better.

      Also time to bring back anti-trust laws and break up any companies that are "too big to fail".

      To a large extent, laws are effectively written and enforced by the companies that are "too big to fail" and their friends. Unless and until corporate hegemony is upended or destroyed this kind of abuse will continue to grow.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    10. Re:"Some" data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a Facebook shadow profile. If you use the internet without a blocker, you are also being tracked by them, without any consent whatever.

    11. Re:"Some" data? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Have no fear, next month banks will be relieving you of the responsibility of having credit because you friended someone who is deep in debt. Or you won't be able to get health insurance because of meds the rest of your family is taking and they think it might be hereditary.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    12. Re:"Some" data? by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sad but true. But that doesn't mean people shouldn't try and make things better. It's not like these things are unavoidable natural disasters, they are the results of plotting, greedy sociopaths. We can fight back, and that, thankfully, seems to be a recurring theme in this election cycle.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    13. Re:"Some" data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we might even be able to come up with a good sound bite for lobbying.

      Maybe something like...

      Only Yes Means Yes

    14. Re:"Some" data? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The majority of my friends aren't geeks. What really weirds me out is that they say they wouldn't tell their friends everything about their private lives, but if I tell them that IT admins with access to their entire online life are just people like me, their eyes glaze over.

      I try to explain it in simple terms: You don't want me to know this private stuff about you - but in my professional capacity I have access to all this information about you. There are numerous examples of governments with political agendas or individuals with personal agendas abusing access to private information. You are relying on the fact that you will never knowingly or unknowingly get on the wrong side of anybody in that position.

      But still, blank.

      I have the same problem. I think it has something to do with 'out of sight, out of mind'. If our friends don't know, will likely never meet, and don't know about the people who have access to their private data, then it's easy for them to keep their heads in the sand. It's comfortable, it requires no additional effort, and the threat of having to change their daily routines and upset their social structures feels more imminent and more dangerous than the (in their minds still abstract) threat of having their private info revealed to the world. I think this is partly just a human trait, and partly the result of indoctrination in public schools in an industrial society.

      I don't know how to explain it to people. I mean when I was a kid life was simpler, as actions were less likely to have consequences: I'd just go into l33t hax0r mode and obtain files from their machine / school computer account and then show them what I can do...

      I just don't know what to do.

      I've never been remotely close to being a hacker, never mind 'l33t'. But I also don't know what to do. I offer my friends help with making their online activities safer and more private, and all I hear are crickets. And I'm not talking about ditching Facebook, Twitter, and the like - I'm just talking about ad blockers, NoScript, and a basic education about the types of places and behaviours to avoid. If they won't even do the Internet equivalent of asking a partner about STD's before having sex, how the hell would they ever come to terms with the fact that companies like Facebook are just using them and plundering their very lives for profit? Sometimes I feel like Neo in The Matrix.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    15. Re:"Some" data? by Cigarra · · Score: 2

      Nobody who is trying to do things right, is going to use anything like that.

      Oh, you're such a nerd. Not that's anything wrong with that! But the world doesn't work like that. Most of the people don't make app usage decisions based whether or not they're based on open standards / protocols, but on what kind of User Experience they get from the apps. In that sense, Whatsapp was FAR FAR better than the SMS they were competing with they started, back in 2009-10. The rest is history.

      --
      I don't have a sig.
    16. Re:"Some" data? by wvmarle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      WhatsApp messages are end-to-end encrypted - or so they say, at least. I'm by no means an expert so I take their word for it, including it being unbreakable and WhatsApp not being able to read my messages while in transit and so.

      This means the only data WhatsApp could possibly have from me, other than my phone number and my contact list, is encrypted messages (something they can't search for clues about my interests - yes I'm conveniently ignoring the time before they encrypted it all), and how many messages I exchange with whom, and the size of those messages and maybe info about attachments (type and size).

      Where is the value in such data when it comes to targeting ads?

    17. Re:"Some" data? by Shadow+IT+Ninja · · Score: 2

      Privacy can be taken back. You may have lost control of your existing data but that doesn't mean you can't protect yourself going forward. Besides, privacy is a complex family of issues and I there are a lot of aspects which aren't dead yet or which could get a lot worse. We have not yet come to a point where people are tracked with facial recognition (and other identifying technologies) everywhere they go in the physical world. We have not yet come to the point where our DNA is analyzed to discover what marketing strategies we are susceptible to. We have also yet to really explore the idea of symmetry of information. That is, the right to know all about the people who know all about you.

    18. Re: "Some" data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Slashdot. We follow the HURD.

      No, I am not sorry for that.

    19. Re:"Some" data? by Shadow+IT+Ninja · · Score: 2

      Indeed, after talking to a lot of people recently about Facebook, I am impressed at how many have an account because of peer pressure. These people mostly say that they don't log on very often and when they do, they just check items about events and never post anything. So the support for Facebook is very broad but also very shallow.

      Regarding antitrust laws, I think there have been different attitudes at different times in history. In fact, I think we are building towards a populist movement now which could lead to a round of trust busting like we haven't seen since the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt. A lot sentiment has been pro-business but that has been changing. I hope that it changes to pro-free market and trust busting supports the free market.

    20. Re:"Some" data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post, and a lot following it, are so fatalistic.

      You're creating a self-fulfilling prophesy by saying things like this. We need to instead pull together and focus citizen efforts.

      In the end people have an inate need for privacy. They will revolt when the repercussions become more tangible and more restricting.

    21. Re:"Some" data? by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      ...Sometimes I feel like Neo in The Matrix.

      Are you the person that sent that "Help, I'm trapped in series of progressively worsening movies!" text?
      Seriously, when I try to explain actual privacy issues to my friends, I come to the conclusion that I need some brighter friends...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    22. Re:"Some" data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pull together? All of, say, 4 of us? Nobody really cares. Revolt against... What? They're consumer choices what we're dealing with. Nothing more. There are no dark forces of evil or anything moving about. The vast majority has made its collective choice. We can adapt, wring our hands, and lose out privacy or rebel, stay outside in the cold and lose our privacy anyway. All it takes is one random acquaintance tagging you on a picture or video and you're in the system. Forever. What are you going to do, threaten all your friends? Good luck holding on to any of them. They'll let you go as an antisocial embarassment. Do you want to end up ostracized for... What?

    23. Re:"Some" data? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Sadly, there is nothing you can do. :-/

      You can fix ignorant but you can't fix stupid.

      The only way people will learn is when it personally effects them in a negative way until then you're talking to a log who has no concept of fire. :-(

    24. Re:"Some" data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What matters is alternative action routes, rather than information.
      If Facebook provides me with great benefits (emotional, social, financial, whatever) and you say it is bad, what am I to do? To give up these benefits?
      If you provided some alternative: "google knows too much about you, when you want to be forgotten use duckduckgo" it's easier to act upon your advice.
      What is the alternative you propose? How can I be informed of social activities and promote my products without Facebook?
      For me, I took the choice long ago, for others, we need to provide a way out.

    25. Re: "Some" data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big surprise. Spying networks don't care about you. I'm still waiting for the revenge though. Where is the site that lists all the private data about employees of these companies? Home addresses, pictures, online webcams, where their children go to school etc.

    26. Re: "Some" data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't heard anything from the herd about the Hurd in a long time.

    27. Re:"Some" data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does "w/" mean? "with"? Too lazy to write "with"? Why?

    28. Re: "Some" data? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      HURD could have been the basis for Replicant, instead of the polluted Android

    29. Re:"Some" data? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Also word of mouth. Everybody in my family uses WhatsApp, so if I were to switch to, say, Telegram, I'd have to migrate them all to get them there. Since it's a communication app, not a game or tool that I alone may use, I need others to use the same thing I use

    30. Re:"Some" data? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      habit

    31. Re: "Some" data? by curt.wetzel · · Score: 1

      Of course, corporations are people, so you are actually calling for the death of our corporate brothers and sisters. How Could you say such a thing you genocidal maniac?

    32. Re:"Some" data? by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 1

      tldr Your friends may not have experienced any really negative consequences, or possibly even known anyone that has.

      I do agree with you, but I'll play devil's advocate a little. I've cleaned out malware from an older family member repeatedly. They eventually got their email hacked. They changed their password, and the problem was fixed. I explained that email could have been used to get into other accounts. So, they change the pw for their bank sites. But everything else just doesn't matter to them. And they never actually saw any other consequences. I've pleaded with them and made some headway on better practices, but it was such a battle because the consequences were so light, and the only time I've ever seen serious consequences from security issues was at work, but my work is IT. If our friends don't deal with IT, they just really seldom experience any serious problems. Identity stolen? 5 minute call to credit cards. I hear about worse outcomes, but I actually don't know anyone this has happened to.

    33. Re: "Some" data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's talking about corporations involved in "mergers and buyouts". We don't tolerate cannibalism in our society.

    34. Re:"Some" data? by chihowa · · Score: 1

      WhatsApp messages are end-to-end encrypted - or so they say, at least. I'm by no means an expert so I take their word for it, including it being unbreakable and WhatsApp not being able to read my messages while in transit and so.

      Either there's no value in the data that Facebook has negotiated to pay lots of money for or the sentence above is just marketing (ie. lies). Facebook, after likely doing its due diligence, is betting on the former...

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    35. Re:"Some" data? by Gussington · · Score: 1

      I have the same problem. I think it has something to do with 'out of sight, out of mind'.

      But why is this a problem? You value privacy because you grew up in an environment that considers it valuable. What if I grew up in an environment that doesn't?
      For most of human civilisation privacy wasn't a thing, then for a brief time it was, and now it's not again. That might be a shock for those in the transition phase, but from my kids generation onward it's normal. Welcome to old age.

    36. Re:"Some" data? by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Where is the value in such data when it comes to targeting ads?

      These privacy discussions are funny because a lot of people seem to focus on the "oh noes, they wanna see me dick pics!"
      I have no idea, but I would assume Google, Facebook, MS etc don't care about your penis, the real interest is who is connected to who, how often, what types of relationships you have with others etc. This can be obtained simply by gathering contacts and message size/frequency. This is enough to build a good pattern of marketability that can be converted to ad revenue. There may be more to it, and maybe Mark Zuckerberg won't be happy until he has a photo of everyone's penis on his office wall, but I suspect it's a little less sinister than that.

    37. Re:"Some" data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only time I ask for an explicit "yes means yes" is after we have a fight. Similarly, I didn't care about WhatsApp's little changes to its privacy policy until it was bought by Facebook.

    38. Re: "Some" data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are romanticising losing the advancements of civilised society. Is feminism 'just a phase'? If we go back to slavery, would that be like going back to a 'natural state'?

    39. Re:"Some" data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where exactly are people fighting back? The two frontrunners are Hillary whom there is a lot of evidence is crooked, and Trump for whom there is a lot of evidence is crooked.

      The fact that one crooked member of the establishment has managed to convince a bunch of non-thinking nationalists that he's not crooked by using populism that triggers what few braincells they have to fire doesn't mean he's not crooked and not part of the establishment, it just means he's figured out how to pretend to a bunch of stupid people that he isn't.

      Trump has been as much part of the establishment for decade, hell he is (or was) a long running friend of the Clintons and a key associate.

      If people were fighting back they'd go for a 3rd, independent candidate, but instead they're just voting for the other guy because they're stupid enough to be convinced that he's anti-establishment.

      The same happened in the UK with UKIP, stupid people bought into the idea that Farage was anti-establishment but he was an investment banker who got the job through his wealthy investment banking father and who hunts grouse at weekends. He was educated at private school.

      It's long been obvious that people want change but are too lazy to fight for it, it seems now if some populist demagogue comes along and pretends he's giving them change then that's all it takes to assuage their own guilt that they're not actually doing anything to achieve the change they so desperately proclaim to want. More fool them, just as with the UK's EU referendum where all the key figures came out less than 24hrs later and admitted that actually they'd lied about everything from it being able to reduce immigration to it providing extra NHS funding, they'll be bitterly disappointed when they find out that real change requires a little more effort than falling for a political conman like Farage or Trump.

      The only people really fighting back are the handful that vote for truly independent candidates. If you're not one of those people you're not fighting back, you're voting for more (and possibly worse) of the same - you're part of the problem whatever you may have convinced yourself.

    40. Re:"Some" data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WhatsApp messages are end-to-end encrypted - or so they say, at least. I'm by no means an expert so I take their word for it, including it being unbreakable and WhatsApp not being able to read my messages while in transit and so.

      This means the only data WhatsApp could possibly have from me, other than my phone number and my contact list, is encrypted messages (something they can't search for clues about my interests - yes I'm conveniently ignoring the time before they encrypted it all), and how many messages I exchange with whom, and the size of those messages and maybe info about attachments (type and size).

      Where is the value in such data when it comes to targeting ads?

      So what about that rumour that only the end-to-end /transmission/ is encrypted and the actual storage at the terminal points is readable??

    41. Re: "Some" data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      time to look for another messenger application .....

  2. that does it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dropping WhatsApp and moving to something else

    1. Re: that does it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Try Signal. It's free and open source with encryption.

    2. Re: that does it! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Or Telegram

    3. Re: that does it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Telegram rolled its own security. Independent analysis of the protocol has shown the service to be insecure. The encryption employed by Telegram is client-to-server rather than end-to-end in WhatsApp. This has been known for several years but people continue to ignore the warnings. Only the client is open source, the server is proprietary. Plus, the company has an aura of mystery since it doesn't publish any business information including office location.

    4. Re: that does it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Threema is another alternative with a good privacy policy, although it costs a few dollars.

    5. Re: that does it! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Does Signal have end to end encryption? Also, is it there on all platforms - not just iOS & Android, but Windows 10 Mobile & Blackberry?

    6. Re: that does it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just use email, it doesn't belong to any particular company.

  3. Repeat after me... by HungryMonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you're not paying for the product, you are the product. Surprise, surprise.

    1. Re:Repeat after me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, with regard to Linux, does that mean 1/3rd of Slashdot poll-voters are some kind of product for Torvalds?

    2. Re:Repeat after me... by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      In a way. If we weren't users of Linux, Linus wouldn't be so famous or get any of the benefits of this fame.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    3. Re:Repeat after me... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Not sure if it still is, but WhatsApp used to be free for the first year and then $1/year thereafter. $1/year isn't much, but it should be more than enough to cover the costs of moving short plain-text messages to and from users.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Repeat after me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think this analogy does not work. Linux is an Open Source tool that we *use* [and contribute to openly] to build products. Facebook is a tool to herd products that will be sold to its paying users.

    5. Re:Repeat after me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's open source. You're not the product, you're the quality control department.

    6. Re:Repeat after me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if it still is, but WhatsApp used to be free for the first year and then $1/year thereafter. $1/year isn't much, but it should be more than enough to cover the costs of moving short plain-text messages to and from users.

      Oh, boy, Sometimes I get really mad at myself for thinking too high. How could I possibly know that people would surrender all their lives for an application that I could have built in one hour? I can't think of something easier to make than a message app. I'm doomed to keep thinking about how to make a real 3d in-space display, fantastically complex logistic and security apps, while the low brows take all the money. That's life.

    7. Re:Repeat after me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re Linux: The hours I spend contributing to the community with my valued skills make me sure that I am not the *product*.

  4. Surprise? by DatbeDank · · Score: 1

    When I found out that Whatsapp was owned by Facebook, I expected all of my conversations to be polled and mined for data. Are there folks who are surprised by this?

    1. Re:Surprise? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, probably a lot of people. Before it was purchased, WhatsApp had a very strong privacy guarantee and made a marketing point of the fact that their protocol's end-to-end encryption meant that they couldn't spy on you even if they wanted to. When Facebook bought them, they announced that there would be no changes to this guarantee.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re: Surprise? by Malc · · Score: 1

      They say the messages are encrypted, but nothing about metadata (who you messagesd, when, size of message, etc). This is the kind of thing GCHQ and NSA got in trouble for.

    3. Re: Surprise? by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 3

      GCHQ and NSA got in trouble???? [citation needed]

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    4. Re:Surprise? by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

      there wasn't end to end encryption before the buyout, this was just enabled a few months ago. Lack of encryption was the reason telegram was started.

      --
      Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
  5. Standard protocol by tsa · · Score: 2

    I wish the EU would force makers of messaging software to standardize the protocols they use so that I can choose to use the program I want to use. As it is now you have to use what everybody uses to stay in touch with your friends, so now I have to give the datasuckers at Facebook all the information I so desparately don't want them to have because Whatsapp is a handy tool that everyone uses. I would gladly pay for a program that does what Whatsapp did before it was part of Facebook and nothing else, but I can't now because I can't force friends and relatives to use the same thing I do.

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:Standard protocol by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2

      XAMPP, IRC and Email are all pretty well documented. All have multiple clients.

    2. Re:Standard protocol by TFlan91 · · Score: 1

      Pray Answered: Signal: https://whispersystems.org/

    3. Re:Standard protocol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have signal but it is pretty useless if no one of your friends is using it.

    4. Re:Standard protocol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And none of these clients have a significant number of users. Maybe email, although younger people don't seem to use it as much as older ones.

    5. Re:Standard protocol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's pretty damning, then. If it doesn't work with anything else, then its protocol isn't ready for use. Just like Whatsapp.

      Open protocols first. Then you pick the best implementation (and we all might go our own ways with our subjective judgements). It's in the second step, that teams get to show off how awesome they are.

    6. Re:Standard protocol by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Signal is probably secure, but all communication goes via OpenWhisperSystems' servers, as does registration (which ties your identity to your account). They can't be forced to MITM your connections (probably - unless someone finds a vulnerability in the protocol), but they can unilaterally delete your account and they can be coerced into doing so. In contrast, Tox is completely decentralised (no central servers, it's a pure peer-to-peer network). Your identity is just a public key, so the only people who can identify you on the network are people that you have told your public key to through some out-of-band mechanism (or people who can view enough of the network that they can associate a public key with something else - i.e. an adversary like the NSA).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:Standard protocol by butchersong · · Score: 2

      The permissions for signal seem pretty insane though. Then again, maybe this is standard these days:
      http://support.whispersystems....

    8. Re:Standard protocol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that the entire selling point behind Signal is that it's supposed to be resistant to "an adversary like the NSA," I would think their ability to trivially associate a key with a real person would kind of turn that on its head.

      Nice advertisement for Tox though, that was iless than subtle. Not quite as interesting as the tweet where Snowden shared his public key to whoever was responsible for the DNC leak (http://www.inquisitr.com/3389936/edward-snowden-dead-mysterious-tweet-is-sending-conspiracy-theorists-into-a-meltdown/) but I suppose if you're going to advertise something as being anti-NSA, his face would be the one to go on the label.

    9. Re:Standard protocol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be careful what you wish for. To ask EU to legalize what kind of protocols messaging applications over Internet uses seems like giving it way too much power. The proper way is instead to do what EU is doing, making sure there are strong integrity laws that govern what information can be stored and how it can be used. Unfortunately that is kinda easy to get around if people use software from companies that are not based in EU so it does still need somewhat informed consumers but I still think EU is attacking it from the right angle. Note that there is still a lot to do, the safe harbour deal with the US should be redone for example (although to be fair it seems like there is a fair chance it might be soon).

    10. Re:Standard protocol by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Considering that the entire selling point behind Signal is that it's supposed to be resistant to "an adversary like the NSA," I would think their ability to trivially associate a key with a real person would kind of turn that on its head.

      Any global passive adversary can do traffic analysis on any communication network. Signal's message encryption should stand up against the NSA unless there are any vulnerabilities in the implementation that the NSA has found and not told anyone about or unless they have some magical decryption power that we don't know about (unlikely). Protection of metadata is much harder. If you connect to the Signal server and they can watch your network traffic and that of other Signal users, then they can infer who you are talking to. If they can send men with lawyers, guns, or money around to OWS then they can coerce them into recording when your client connects and from what IP, even without this.

      In contrast, Tox uses a DHT, which makes some kinds of interception easier and others harder. There's no central repository mapping between Tox IDs and other identifiable information, but when you push anything to the DHT that's signed with your public key then it identifies your endpoint so a global passive adversary can use this to track you (Tox over Tor, in theory, protects you against this, but in practice there are so few people doing this that it's probably trivial to track).

      No system is completely secure, but my personal thread model doesn't include the NSA taking an active interest in me - if they did that then there are probably a few hundred bugs in the operating systems and other programs that I use that they could exploit to compromise the endpoint, without bothering to attack the protocol. I'd like to be relatively secure against bulk data collection though - I don't want any intelligence or law enforcement agency to be able intercept communications unless at least one participant is actively under suspicion, because if you allow that you end up with something like Hoover's FBI or the Stazi..

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:Standard protocol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you realise that if in that case you're using your software of choice to talk to people using Whatsapp, you're still giving your data to Facebook.

    12. Re:Standard protocol by tsa · · Score: 1

      Exactly and that is why this is precisely not what I want: yet another stand alone messaging application. It's time messaging becomes standardized. The only institution with enough power to do that is the EU.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    13. Re:Standard protocol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too late. TTIP is going to make the EU the corporate USA's bitch. Forever. 600 million consumers about to march into the jaws or the US-based multinationals. Nothing we can do.

    14. Re:Standard protocol by Gussington · · Score: 1

      As it is now you have to use what everybody uses to stay in touch with your friends, so now I have to give the datasuckers at Facebook all the information I so desparately don't want them to have because Whatsapp is a handy tool that everyone uses.

      Only because you chose to follow instead of lead. I'm not on FB or Whatsapp and lost contact with some casual acquaintances as a side effect, but the message I'm reinforcing is that not everyone uses it, we have choices.
      Change doesn't happen by itself, and it doesn't happen by merely following and complaining. If you want change, you have to participate in the process.

  6. qualquer lugar que não tenha aquela anã by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    existe uma diferença entre paranóia e saber que existe uma merda que fica te perseguindo porque você é um "rapaz".

  7. Goodbye WhatsApp, it was fun by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 1


    Please find me on Telegram. My nickname is FFB

    Actually everything else seems better now.

    --
    A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
    1. Re:Goodbye WhatsApp, it was fun by tsa · · Score: 1

      That only works if you have no one to talk to.

      --

      -- Cheers!

  8. And if you are paying... by Laxator2 · · Score: 1

    ... does that mean that you are not the product ?
    It only means that you are a much more profitable product, one who is willing to pay to be taken advantage of.
    You get the freeloader treatment anyway, so no point in paying.
    The well is irreversibly poisoned.

  9. Repeat after me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nothing Facebook says can be trusted. Same goes for any company whose product or service you aren't paying for, and lots of the ones you do pay for, too.

    Two years ago when Facebook bought WhatsApp, the instant messaging client said that the deal would not affect the digital privacy of its users. Things are changing now

    Things always change. Companies always break their promises, er, "update their terms of service." Look at how many statements Microsoft made about Windows 10 that turned out to be utterly false, for example. Welcome to America, the show where the rules are made up and promises don't matter.

  10. Privacy bye bye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It grabs your phones address book, takes all the numbers in there, and contact details and shares them with Facebook. It does this even though you never had permission from those people to give their details to Facebook.

    FB's trick it to bury this in the EULA.

    You are linked to these people too, so if they do something bad, you are flagged as their co-conspirator on the naughty lists.

    Perhaps you installed Facebook or Whatsapp and like everyone else, never visited the website and never read this EULA. Or worse, perhaps it came pre-installed, handed to you by the salesman, all set up and ready for you.
    Either way, its a massive privacy invasion, and now Whatsapp's grab of that data will be handed to Facebook for resale.

  11. Re:qualquer lugar que não tenha aquela an by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bots are defeating the defenses. Keep an eye on it, Slashdot.

  12. Business as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, Darth Zuckerberg has altered the deal? Pray that he does not alter it farther.

  13. Terms of Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I right in thinking a change to the ToS/Privacy Policy will mean that a new app version will allow us to opt out of the amended terms?

    Currently, you have 30 days to change your options under Settings > Account > "Share my account info" (source : Settings > Account > Share my account info)

  14. Uploading soul by trumpetto · · Score: 1

    Can't find the option to upload my soul.

    1. Re:Uploading soul by sanf780 · · Score: 1

      Well, you have Pony Island here and now!

  15. so much for privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what do we need to do to start protecting our privacy of communication these days?

  16. When it went free... by iampiti · · Score: 1

    When it went free I started to worry. If you're not paying they're obviously going to use your data.
    I hate how more and more services are going "data-only", meaning that you can't pay with money even if you want to. Windows 10 is one of the worst because is only free to some and it still spies you

  17. How to delete your phone number from facebook by Ormy · · Score: 2

    So obviously even after you 'delete' your phone number from facebook they will still retain that information indefinitely and probably trying to link your facebook and whatsapp accounts/information. You have to make them think your number has changed. You do this by registering a second facebook account (using a second email of course, and any random name), register your phone number with that second account (thereby removing it from the first account) then wait a while then delete/deactivate the second account. This way facebook will assume the number has changed hands (don't let them know the two facebook accounts were owned by the same person, use a different IP or at least spoof your user agent) and *hopefully* won't make the link between your original facebook account and whatsapp account (phone number).

    1. Re:How to delete your phone number from facebook by sdinfoserv · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's even more insidious that that....FB creates "dark profiles", these are profiles on people who don't even have or want accounts. For example you go to visit your 80 year old mother who's not on FB, but you mention the fact that you're going to visit in a post.... they create her as a "dark profile". every time someone mentions her in a post, they continue to data mine and aggregate attributes... age, geographic location, income, relatives, what she likes, gifts given,... etc. You post a selfie with her while visiting - now they have facial recognition to add to the profile - all for marketing purposes and clearly without her consent.

    2. Re:How to delete your phone number from facebook by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Same w/ LinkedIn. The site asks me whether to add everyone in my address book/contacts list. Problem is that not everybody uses all emails to be on LinkedIn. I have quite a few email accounts, only one of which I use in my LinkedIn accounts. Others are personal. Yet, I get a LinkedIn invite at an address that's not associated - and won't be associated - w/ my LinkedIn account for the simple reason that I don't wanna lose imported messages in the deluge of 'Hi, unixisc, I'd like to join your LinkedIn network' messages

    3. Re:How to delete your phone number from facebook by Xest · · Score: 2

      Facebook already does this, they're in flagrant violation of European data protection laws, but for some reason no one is touching them, it's frustrating.

      For example, I installed the Facebook app on my phone and have never given Facebook my phone number. Next time I logged in on my PC it prompted me to add my phone number with a textbox and an add button, except the phone number was pre-populated with my phone number, they were effectively asking me to confirm it by asking me to add it, because they'd very clearly already taken it, illegaly, from my phone, to pre-populate their add textbox (I don't use any kind of auto-fill, it was Facebook's actual website populating it).

      This is a complete farce, because they're taking and storing data they have no right to have and then asking you to click a button to make it legal - the fact they even ask you to add it with this pre-populated box means they're completely aware they're breaking the law because it is simply asking you to click the button so that they're compliant. This isn't accidental violation, this is wilful violation, so they should be getting fined the maximum amount by all Data Protection agencies across Europe already.

      Apparently you can opt-out of this new WhatsApp data transfer when it comes along, but what's the bet if you opt-out the data still gets sent regardless?

    4. Re:How to delete your phone number from facebook by Xest · · Score: 1

      I had a friend on MSN messenger who I knew in real life, we'd never connected on the internet in any other way whatsoever so the only way to link us was via MSN.

      I was on LinkedIn but only with 10 or so contacts, all of whom were recruiters and had no common links between me and my friend on MSN.

      One day when I logged into LinkedIn it suggested my friend from MSN as a contact, given that the only way to link us was via MSN it was clear that long before MS bought LinkedIn it was engaging in illegal data sales/transfers with LinkedIn and LinkedIn was willing to buy/accept illegal data too, and use it to try and grow it's business.

      It seems that pretty much all big tech companies violate data protection laws. The law just seems to not get enforced against them.

    5. Re:How to delete your phone number from facebook by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      Or maybe your friend let LinkedIn trawl his/her contact list. I have never been on Lin, but I receive requests from tangential acquaintances often enough that I think that must be what happened. I've seen similar crap on Facebook: "Awww, you don't have enough friends yet. Sign me in to all of your online services, so I can make you some friends."

    6. Re:How to delete your phone number from facebook by Xest · · Score: 1

      Someone else suggested that when I've mentioned this before, but the issue is that MSN used a Hotmail account that I had set up years ago specifically for MSN, whereas LinkedIn used one of my actual proper e-mail addresses.

      If I had to guess it would be that MS was transferring IP address data of machines we connected with + real names.

  18. "We won't share your data" by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

    "We won't share your data, but the people we sell it to will."

    Suckers.

    Anyone that believes the "We won't share your data" claim is either gullible, naive, or just plain stupid.

    Of course they'll share your data, that's what their mission is: to collect your data and share it.

    Stop kidding yourselves, this is what it's all about. You'd think people would have learned this by now, but noooooooooooo...

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  19. "Facebook family" by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    The online equivalent of the Gambino family.

  20. Who didn't see this coming? by alispguru · · Score: 3, Funny

    I did, when we talked about WhatsApp back in 2014.

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
  21. The facebook neural network is always hungry. by Z80a · · Score: 1

    It craves for data. ALL the data.

  22. soooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what happens if you dont have facebook but you use whatsapp?

    will my conversations about obama being a dumb n-word (i actually say nword, im trying to get that banned too LOL) and how awesome putin is just pop on random peoples facebooks or some shit? now THAT would be fun