Hit App Sarahah Quietly Uploads Your Address Book (theintercept.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Sarahah, a new app that lets people sign up to receive anonymized, candid messages, has been surging in popularity; somewhere north of 18 million people are estimated to have downloaded it from Apple and Google's online stores, making it the No. 3 most downloaded free software title for iPhones and iPads. Sarahah bills itself as a way to "receive honest feedback" from friends and employees. But the app is collecting more than just feedback messages. When launched for the first time, it immediately harvests and uploads all phone numbers and email addresses in your address book. Although Sarahah does in some cases ask for permission to access contacts, it does not disclose that it uploads such data, nor does it seem to make any functional use of the information. Zachary Julian, a senior security analyst at Bishop Fox, discovered Sarahah is uploading of private information when he installed the app on his Android phone, a Galaxy S5 running Android 5.1.1. The phone was outfitted with monitoring software, known as Burp Suite, which intercepts internet traffic entering and leaving the device, allowing the owner to see what data is sent to remote servers. When Julian launched Sarahah on the device, Burp Suite caught the app in the act of uploading his private data.

Comments

So does almost every other app...

[Anonymous Coward]

Big news! Something almost every other free app does.. shocker.

Re: So does almost every other app...

[Anonymous Coward]

To be expected. Bastards anyway...

Remember, the Walled Garden is for you safety

[Noishkel]

Seems to me more and more the entire 'app store' concept is a failure from the stand point of just about everything but making money. At best you have a little simple program that can't do a whole lot of anything, but it's also always one TOS change away from completely destroying your data security. Not to mention that they seem to be just as susceptible to a lot of the common security problems that show up.

Re:Remember, the Walled Garden is for you safety

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly why people should only use FOSS software or software that they write themselves. Otherwise, you just don't know.

Re:Remember, the Walled Garden is for you safety

[JaredOfEuropa]

Nope. At least on iOS the app cannot access your address book without you giving it explicit permission (apparently also the case on newer version of Android according to the article). Neither can it access anything else. There also seems to be much less worry about malware on iOS; most BYOD schemes I've seen require virus scanners, sandboxing and/or monitoring software on Android, but only require a strong PIN on iPhones (or the fingerprint scanner)

By the way, accessing the address book in order to find out if any of your friends are making use of the service is a legitimate reason to access the address book. I suspect it's an important reason for WhatsApp to become as popular as it did, since you didn't need to ask your friends if they signed up and what their handle was. But for this very reason you would expect Apple and Google to come up with a way to match friends on your address list without giving them full access, for example by providing a function that gives you a unique (for your service) user ID for each contact, by hashing a phone nr after salting it with the App ID or some such. That way the app can poll the service to see who signed up without requiring access to the actual address book.

Re:Remember, the Walled Garden is for you safety

[Kkloe]

lol

Re:Remember, the Walled Garden is for you safety

[vux984]

. At least on iOS the app cannot access your address book without you giving it explicit permission (apparently also the case on newer version of Android according to the article). Neither can it access anything else

The trouble remains that 'access' and 'upload the entire thing' is the same thing.

I suspect it's an important reason for WhatsApp to become as popular as it did, since you didn't need to ask your friends if they signed up and what their handle was.

Feature or bug? Maybe I don't WANT *everyone* to know I signed up. I signed up for telegram a while back to try it out with my wife. I was pretty appalled when a bunch of people at work started messaging me all over the place on it. We already have plenty of approved channels for them to reach me on; i was deliberately looking for something that I could leave running 24x7 on multiple devices... and not get messages from people at work.

But for this very reason you would expect Apple and Google to come up with a way to match friends on your address list without giving them full access, for example by providing a function that gives you a unique (for your service) user ID for each contact, by hashing a phone nr after salting it with the App ID or some such. That way the app can poll the service to see who signed up without requiring access to the actual address book.

This is a good idea. But even that is more sharing than I might want. They still get to build a social graph on graph on me that's bigger than letting me expose only the social graph I want to expose to them. They still know I am 'connectd' to all those people at work, even though i have no intention of connecting to them on the app, etc.

Games are notably bad for this too. I might wish to play a game and associate and communicate and share only with my wife and kids... but the social shit brings my sister inlaw in, randos at work, the neighbors, vendors and clients, lawyers and accountants, etc... not everyone on my contacts list is my 'friend'; and I don't want to connect to the vast majority of people in my contacts with any given app.

Re:Remember, the Walled Garden is for you safety

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you use FOSS, be sure to review every single line of code before you compile and install.

Re:Remember, the Walled Garden is for you safety

[JaredOfEuropa]

Agreed: the OS should prompt for user permission to use even that simple hash function. And iOS guidelines already state that an app should cope when it gets "no" for an answer when asking for access to system features or user data. Sadly most developers want to force you to use the "social shit" since that is what makes their service valuable and a nice candidate to be bought by FB or Google (or at least some idiot VC)

Re:Remember, the Walled Garden is for you safety

[Anonymous Coward]

No, not unless you read and understand every single line of source code for each piece of software you install for each update. You'd have to compile everything on your machine. Furthermore you'd airgap your connection as well.

Re:Remember, the Walled Garden is for you safety

[Anonymous Coward]

With the "less education" userbase of i users, I would expect all of them to click YES to Sararah's Contact info prompts. Not sure why people aren't less worried - the app store review process is utterly pointless from an info security standpoint.

Finer grained permissions have been available on Android for several years now, so both platforms from this standpoint are exactly the same. Any malware that doesn't jb/root must go through the same permissions on BOTH platforms (clicking yes). That said, a piece of software can refuse to continue until the users says yes.

If the BYOD IT department isn't competent enough to realize 3rd party virus scanners are pointless, then that's on them. They can simply force the software checks at Google, and any app found to be malicious will automatically be pulled off of user's devices. After all, 99% of the spyware/malware found on any device is simply just a "regular app" that just does something with your information. Also, if you pay attention to the numbers, it is an insanely small amount of people being affected by Malware: there were over 3 BILLION activations according to Google's numbers. Even at a 10m affected users, that's 0.33% of devices.

Also, seeing that the security researcher in question managed to find the spyware on his Android because he was able to install security/monitoring software onto it. It was only a couple weeks ago when M ac desktops were revealed to have malware installed on them for 2+ years and nobody noticed. So my question to you is this: How do you know there's no spyware / malware on an idevice? APL doesn't want you to have this kind of control, so....

Re:Remember, the Walled Garden is for you safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Even without every person reading and understanding every line of source of every Linux application, somehow, the ecosystem is not the privacy destroying clusterfuck that Android is.

The Linux model works because the community does not tolerate personal data scraping for profit. People can look at the code, and even if not every single thing is looked at, if you are busted doing it, that's the end for your program. The Android model fails because the technically ignorant community not only tolerates it, but rewards it.

I can apt-get install nearly anything from the Linux repos without having to worry. Closed source stuff on Android? Not so much. Open source stuff on Android, such as from f-droid? Pretty safe. Like it or not, it DOES help to have source available. Is it 100% perfect? No. But results speak for themselves.

Re:Remember, the Walled Garden is for you safety

[Anonymous Coward]

and verify the editor and compiler tool chain aren't injecting anything suspicious.. and the phone transfer tool.

Re:Remember, the Walled Garden is for you safety

[Anonymous Coward]

i was deliberately looking for something that I could leave running 24x7 on multiple devices... and not get messages from people at work.

Like, say, a private e-mail account that supports IMAP and can be read by a multitude of generic clients on most devices one can think of - even and especially devices that don't take a SIM card.

Re:Remember, the Walled Garden is for you safety

[vux984]

So I just ran into this sort of issue with an app... its a simple app.

https://play.google.com/store/...

It's a simple app... stick your phone on silent, and it pops up to ask you how long. The idea that you usually know how long your want your phone to be silent when you put it on silent, and often forget about afterwards.

It requests permission to "take videos and pictures"

WTF right? Why does it need that permission?

"15.3: Fix for interference with video recording apps. To detect when the camera is in use, camera permission is needed. This is optional in Android 6+, but if you don't give permission, Shush! can't tell that you're using the camera, and may pop up during video recording."

FFS ... seriously. And you see this sort of thing all the time. To 'play nice' with the phone and make sure it behaves nicely when you are on the phone, or taking a video, etc... the permission to determine simply whether you are using the camera or phone itself requires you to give the app permission to make calls and take videos. Those basic status APIs should be available without special permission or they should require a separate 'status permission' separate from the ability to make calls or take video.

How are we at version 6 of android, and you still need to give an app permission to take pictures and video just to give it permission to avoid irritating you while you are taking videos with a different app?

Re:Remember, the Walled Garden is for you safety

[jbn-o]

Nope. At least on iOS the app cannot access your address book without you giving it explicit permission (apparently also the case on newer version of Android according to the article). Neither can it access anything else.

So long as the software is proprietary, technical users have no idea what the proprietary program is programmed to do (what it's capable of). And when that software is changed (patched or updated) programmers who can figure out what that program does have to re-learn what the program does. That's a lot of work to do every time a program is changed. This is why proprietors don't respect a user's freedom to run, share, inspect, and modify; proprietors use their power against the user. The consequence of this is that claims to the contrary (such as your assertions above) are not believable because they're either beyond the claimant's knowledge or the claims come from the untrustworthy proprietor.

By the way, accessing the address book in order to find out if any of your friends are making use of the service is a legitimate reason to access the address book.

Not without the explicit consent of the user, preferably in a form non-technical users can grant and rescind without having to go through a licensing agreement.

Re:Remember, the Walled Garden is for you safety

[vux984]

Like, say, a private e-mail account that supports IMAP

Fuck No. Not like that. Please god, no, not like that. I'd rather DIAF. That sounds truly abominable for my average IM use cases.

and can be read by a multitude of generic clients on most devices one can think of - even and especially devices that don't take a SIM card.

Telegram also works on the desktop and laptops (mac, windows, and Linux). Yes it is tied to a phone number, and yes, I agree that is stupid, but it is not limited to working with devices that have a sim card once the account is setup. That was one of the reasons I like it. I don't want to type on my phone, when im sitting in front of a dual screen with a fantastic keyboard; which is why I prefer it to SMS,,, which is stuck on my phone.

Re:Remember, the Walled Garden is for you safety

[Anonymous Coward]

So long as the software is proprietary, technical users have no idea what the proprietary program is programmed to do (what it's capable of).

The consequence of this is that claims to the contrary (such as your assertions above) are not believable because they're either beyond the claimant's knowledge or the claims come from the untrustworthy proprietor.

This makes no goddamn sense at all. You don't have to trust that the application isn't accessing this stuff behind your back; it's something that's enforced by the OS. You can verify it for yourself by writing an application that attempts to access the address book yourself. It doesn't work unless the user grants access.

Okay, so what if Apple are lying about it and allow some applications clandestine access? Well that doesn't make any goddamn sense either. If they wanted applications to be able to access this stuff without permission, then they wouldn't have added the security restriction in the first place. Furthermore why would they do it that way? If they want to give people's address books away, they don't need a third-party to do it for them, they can access the address book themselves.

Finally, why on earth would Apple do something like that? Nobody is going to pay Apple enough for it to outweigh the damage it would do to their brand. There's no upside for Apple here.

Not without the explicit consent of the user, preferably in a form non-technical users can grant and rescind without having to go through a licensing agreement.

That's how it works on iOS. If an application wants to access the address book, iOS pops up a message asking for permission, at which point the user can grant access or deny it. If they change their mind later, they can go into Settings and change the permission setting at any time they like.

Re:Remember, the Walled Garden is for you safety

[Anonymous Coward]

ONLY Scopes can Scope Scoppy Scopes, not LUDDITE Android apps.

Scopes!

Re:Remember, the Walled Garden is for you safety

[Anonymous Coward]

I can apt-get install nearly anything from the Linux repos without having to worry.

In fact, my distro is very strict about repos, and when I do apt-get install it can easily break things. But I got your idea.

Re:Remember, the Walled Garden is for you safety

[n329619]

I might wish to play a game and associate and communicate and share only with my wife and kids... but the social shit brings my sister inlaw in, randos at work, the neighbors, vendors and clients, lawyers and accountants, etc... not everyone on my contacts list is my 'friend'; and I don't want to connect to the vast majority of people in my contacts with any given app.

You can get a separate email, phone number, and phone for those things you know. There are reasons for a separate work phone, personal phone and maybe home phone. If you like, you can also leave your work phone at work, separating your work with your personal life.

Re:Remember, the Walled Garden is for you safety

[vux984]

You can get a separate email, phone number, and phone for those things you know.

Your suggestion is to pay twice as much per month, to create exactly one group partition? And my neighbors and extended family would still be on the 'personal' one... thanks. but no thanks.

And no, I can't create separate emails etc for each one unless they explicitly support it. If they tie to the phone number, or android or itunes account etc then I'm pretty much stuck. And creating a new itunes or android/play account for each app is all kinds of headaches of its own. You know what would be better than that: not that. :)

If you like, you can also leave your work phone at work

Ok... so here's what I actually do. I have a VOIP service (in my current case I'm actually using jive service). And that is my work number. I have a physical voip deskphone in my home office tied to that service. I have it set to ring my cell during business hours in addition to the deskphone, and to go to voicemail outside office hours. I could get away with a cheaper voip service, but the jive option has unlimited canada/USA calling, good international rates, conference calling bridges, and some autoattendent and call tree features, and internet fax capabilities that I use. I can also use the voip app on my phone to make outgoing calls from my 'work number' from my cell (sometimes that matters); although i mostly just need to be able to take calls.

This already works better than 2 physical cellphones ever would; and is substantially cheaper. I don't have to 'leave the phone at work' or carry around two phones during the day because the work number automatically cuts over to voicemail.

Re:Remember, the Walled Garden is for you safety

[LordWabbit2]

This is what got annoying on Blackberry as well, a torch app that needs access to your address book, I'm like wtf? Find another one, asks for the same thing, eventually I got off my ass and went and found a flashlight.

Re:Remember, the Walled Garden is for you safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Try Threema.
You have explicitly add someone to your phone for them to see you.
Comms are encrypted with keys that you own and generate yourself.
They also claim to delete your messages from their servers the moment they are delivered.
I've been using it for a while now and as far as usability goes, it's quite good.
As expected, I cannot really comment on how secure it really is.

Re:Remember, the Walled Garden is for you safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't the onus be on the video recording app to say "the user is currently busy with something time-sensitive, don't interrupt them with popups from background apps"? "The camera is on" is a pretty poor proxy for that.

I large improvement!

[Gravis Zero]

Previously Sarahah would max out the speaker volume and read my address book aloud while making snarky comments as it read each entry. I'm much happier now that it no longer comments on how often I've called my mother.

Re:I large improvement!

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife does that too.

Your Government Thanks You

[Anonymous Coward]

The US State Department extends this thanks to the millions of fans of our data collection programs. Being harvested from your contact information is not just the privilege of the political figures of the world anymore. Thank You again, citizens of the world.

Give people anonymous ways to criticize each other

[asylumx]

Does it come with a quick-dial to the suicide hotline?

Joking aside, if you download an app and 'allow contacts' when it asks you, probably you should expect them to be grabbing your contacts and using them however they wish. The only surprise here is that people are surprised by this behavior.

Re:Private data?

[thegreatbob]

Renting usually entails some sort of provision of rights to the renter...

Integrity

[HBI]

I think the thing missing from most people's evaluation of such things is the integrity of the app author. The presumption that Apple or Google is looking out for you is incorrect, so you have to go back to the author, which has no known past history of integrity. So why would you trust them to anonymize anything, never mind having your contact list?

This is why I don't download apps, other than the ridiculously short app lifecycles necessitating constant updates. If I don't trust you in the first place, why would I want you updating my phone weekly (or less)?

This kind of thing is created to prey on the young and stupid, I suppose.

Hard to change the 'free app' as-a-service culture

[adosch]

This is totally preaching to the choir here, but sooner or later, everyone needs to come under the realization that your data is worth a TON of dollars. What's better with today's tech, than build you a whiz-bang service for 'free' and how do you think it remains 'free'? Situations exactly like this. It's a completely massive intangible but highly potent asset anyone starting any established or startup company wants to have.

As long as everyone keeps making a quick popular trend of these types of services wrapped around mobile app obfuscation, it won't ever end. At the end of the day with these companies, it matters very little what type of shit they are selling, it's all about what they are getting or can get to. The 'phone' these days is the most personal damn thing any one of us suckers use anymore, right?

Re:Give people anonymous ways to criticize each ot

[Anonymous Coward]

Could be worse. Most Android apps still are on the old permission model where one either allows everything, or the app won't be installed. So, upon installing an app, you give the app free reign to everything and anything.

Re:Give people anonymous ways to criticize each ot

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally hope this starts happening more often and gets even more creepy than it is now. We need something to blow up and draw attention to what happens when privacy doesn't exist, because apparently we're still in the denial phase.

That would explain it

[roc97007]

I was wondering why the volume of spam was up dramatically.

It is the only thing VCs invest in...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was told that VCs will only invest in one of two things:

Apps that sling ads.
Apps that suck data in large quanitites.

This is why stuff like Meitu got so much funding and praise. The app did little to nothing except give a lot of data to its owners.

Similar with Sarahah. Some relatively shitty servers are up, and now some unknown people over in the Middle East now have a ton of connections of Americans and Europeans, as well as private, intimate things of their life. Perfect intel gathering for people who don't like Americans.

Re:Private data?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, your contact list is NOT private data on Android or IOS.

Well, apparently it IS private data on iOS: the article says that Sarahah uploads your contacts immediately and without permission when running on Android, but on iOS it has to ask your permission to access your contacts.

So, score one for iOS (and for more recent versions of Android, that incorporate that privacy feature from iOS).

I don't trust anyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some apps I use on both Android and iOS - and some I don't. And it amazes me that the iOS version may need only access to the mic but the Android one needs access to contacts, camera, mic, location, photos, and everything else.

WTF?!

I will not down load such apps. Access to contacts is forbidden.

I don't care what the reason/excuse is. And you know what? I don't miss them in the slighest.

Android apps are the worst offenders.

Re:I don't trust anyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not an Android problem. That's a terrible coder problem.

Android, iOS, whatever.. it's still the same terrible coder. Enjoy.

Android has made this worse

[Headw1nd]

I feel android has made this worse recently, with the move to broad "categories" of permissions. Originally it seemed pretty easy to determine when an app was asking for something it didn't need, now it seems every permission has at least one area that could lead to something malicious, and the user is left wondering what the app is actually going to do.

Hit app? Why would anyone use this?

[acvh]

Seriously. An app that allows people to send you anonymous messages? I read their justification: to get candid feedback from coworkers and such. I suppose if that is something you welcome, then letting the app have access to your contacts so it would know who can send you messages, is expected.

But really, who would do this? If I know you, and you want to offer me candid feedback, do it.

Re:Hit app? Why would anyone use this?

[Stan92057]

Its easy, look at the comments made by the cowards on this site. Its a prefect program for anon cowards,ass hats,ex wifes,ex anyone IMO

Re:Hit app? Why would anyone use this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a prefect program for anon cowards,ass hats,ex wifes,ex anyone IMO

Exactly! [though not so much for those who hate criticism]

Re:Give people anonymous ways to criticize each ot

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true at all. If an app still had the old permission model then it wouldn't even show up in a Play Store search on newer* devices.

*2013+.

Re:Give people anonymous ways to criticize each ot

[bluefoxlucid]

The surprise here is that the data left the app unencrypted.

And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for those pesky kids I hired for $5/hr to code my app not using a TLS certificate and strong trust validation!

Re:Give people anonymous ways to criticize each ot

[Anonymous Coward]

The teen suicide rate from bullying already proves this.

Re:Private data?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, rentals have a lot of restrictions on privacy. For example, in my state, if I, as the landlord, wish to inspect a property I'm renting to someone else, I'm required to give them at least 48 hours notice of the visit.

Don't tell LinkedIn ...

[gander666]

... those fuckers would steal this idea in a heartbeat.

Re:Don't tell LinkedIn ...

[Anonymous Coward]

They're already doing it. To me they suggested I connect with my contacts from my university mail account, that I never gave them access to, and never used on any app at all (I didn't even have a smartphone at the time).

Airbnb also

[hcs_$reboot]

Airbnb asks for a few things to verify your identity, including login to Google or Facebook... However, Google warns you that "Airbnb wants access to your address book" ...

people are stupid

[pD-brane]

People are stupid.

Furthermore, Sarahah is not free software (which is claimed in the abstract).

Sahara Uploads your contacts.. how do you disallow

[ZippyTheChicken]

I have seen more and more apps from google play with permissions that have nothing to do with their functionality so how do we disallow this? I thought that you could do this with an app if you rooted your phone but is rooting required because once you root some apps arent even available anymore such as netflix. I mean why does a compass app need my contacts?

Surprise surprise

[codeButcher]

Almost entirely just like Whatsapp, Facebook, Telegram, etc. etc. etc.

In fact, I do have something to hide: my contacts' privacy.

Is there any address book alternative out there that hides data to apps that request access and want to suck it, but makes contacts available to apps with a legitimate need?

Re:Surprise surprise

[nasch]

How could it know which ones are legitimate or not? You already have to give permission to the app to read your address book.

Re:Surprise surprise

[codeButcher]

You already have to give permission to the app to read your address book.

Would be better if you could give permission for it ("it" being probably through settings or ad-hoc permissions in you address book app) to only read certain addresses, or groups of addresses, and not even be aware that others exist.

Re:Private data?

[the_B0fh]

What kind of nonsense is this? Ever since iPhone 4/4S, you can restrict apps from touching your Contacts.

Re:Give people anonymous ways to criticize each ot

[asylumx]

I suspect the GP is referring to the privacy topic, not the suicide hotline topic.

IOS vs Android vs Blackberry 10 vs Symbian: perms

[Seven Spirals]

I owned phones with IOS, Android, and Blackberry 10. Android and IOS (at least the versions I had) would only allow you to accept *all* of the permissions the application wants (all or nothing). At least Blackberry 10 would let you refuse individual permissions while accepting others. It rarely works, though. On Blackberry, the apps will double-check that they are getting whatever permissions they want and will refuse to start if you selectively disallow a few.

Today I use an early Symbian phone (Phillips Xenium) that won't even run apps at all.

Re:Private data?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you meant "Score one for early roms of Android that had this feature long before it was a twinkle in iOS's eye" :)

I remember revoking permissions on Gingerbread. Fun times...

Re:Give people anonymous ways to criticize each ot

[currently_awake]

Permissions need settings: No, Yes, Lie (No but tell the App Yes so I can use the App).

Re: IOS vs Android vs Blackberry 10 vs Symbian: pe

[Anonymous Coward]

iOS hasn't worked that way in a long time.

Re:Private data?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to give them any notice if it is an emergency or an issue that threatens the material value, inhabitability, or occupancy permit.

Any open source alternative?

[jma05]

Are there any good open-source contacts and email apps for android that are reasonably good?
I am tired of turning off contacts access as a ritual after every other app install. I just want the OS level contact list to be empty or be a dummy list.
I want a phone app that maintains its own contacts internally... or a separate contacts app that can launch the phone. I really don't need the convenience of invoking contacts from third party apps and find their propensity to download my entire address book creepy.
I would like an open source email client I can trust, which does not "integrate" my address book again. This whole personal data interoperability and integration functionality is unnecessary for me and is more of an annoyance than a convenience.

Operating systems need more granular control

[GodfatherofSoul]

Either have users confirm every instance and be allowed to see what data is being accessed or allow the user to create separate contacts "wallets". I don't know the solution, but this is happening frequently enough that the OS needs to give the user more control than "yeah, have at my black book."

On iOS you can't even send a text without a user confirmation, but someone wants to dump your entire phonebook and that's OK???

Re:Private data?

[Dog-Cow]

Please have someone pull your bowels out through your ass and strangle you with them. You retarded shit.

Re:Private data?

[Dog-Cow]

You are an ignorant and stupid shit. Please stop breathing.

Re: Private data?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tou sounded a bit culpable there son. You know theres this app for that that lets you say those things anonymously.

Solution: XPrivacy

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like XPrivacy (http://repo.xposed.info/module/biz.bokhorst.xprivacy) would stop this crap.

Re: Give people anonymous ways to criticize each o

[Anonymous Coward]

Google deliberately does not allow you to deny net access for apps (because ads), the platform will never be safe.