12 ms·

WhatsApp – Opting out of new terms doesn’t stop Facebook taking information

191 points by breitling 10y ago

po1nter 10y ago
Direct link to the article instead of a google redirect: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/whatsapp-data-sharing-with-facebook-opting-out-of-new-terms-doesnt-actually-stop-facebook-taking-a7213221.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...
BinaryIdiot 10y ago
The terms mention this explicitly and it was talked about when the original stories broke; is there anything new here? I didn't see anything at least. The data WhatsApp will still share with Facebook is the type of data that can be anonymized and while I'm not saying it will (I mean why would they bother? Probably more valuable to NOT anonymize) it's the typical data most apps are collecting.
maccard 10y ago
Well this is kind of obvious, is it not? Of course Facebook is going to have access to your data, they run the service. It's the same as expecting Google to not have access to your nest data, or Amazon to not have access to your twitch data. If it turns out that they're still using our data for advertisement purposes between the two platforms after opting out, then we can be outraged.
- danieldk 10y ago
  Well this is kind of obvious, is it not? Of course Facebook is going to have access to your data, they run the service. It's the same as expecting Google to not have access to your nest data, or Amazon to not have access to your twitch data. The problem is that when Whatsapp gained traction, they were a company that built much of their reputation on charging a small yearly fee rather than selling your data or putting up advertisements. Or to quote 2012's Whatsapp once more: Advertising isn't just the disruption of aesthetics, the insults to your intelligence and the interruption of your train of thought. At every company that sells ads, a significant portion of their engineering team spends their day tuning data mining, writing better code to collect all your personal data, upgrading the servers that hold all the data and making sure it's all being logged and collated and sliced and packaged and shipped out... And at the end of the day the result of it all is a slightly different advertising banner in your browser or on your mobile screen. Remember, when advertising is involved you the user are the product. https://blog.whatsapp.com/245/Why-we-dont-sell-ads https://blog.whatsapp.com/245/Why-we-dont-sell-ads? It's clear why people are upset.
  - maccard 10y ago
    That's a different argument, and a different article. The topic at hand is that the opt out doesn't stop Facebook accessing the whatsapp data, only prevents them from using it for advertising purposes.
patrickaljord 10y ago
I don't get the problem. If you don't trust them why don't you just stop using them? It's not like it's a government spying program you're being forced into and it's not like there aren't a gazillions chat apps alternatives. Also the intersection of people who use whatsapp and have no Facebook already on their phone with access to contacts must be pretty small so not sure this change is as controversial as claimed in this article.
- IkmoIkmo 10y ago
  Really? All my friends, my boss, the shop I just bought a new suit at, my municipality, they're all on whatsapp nowadays. It's a pretty big deal to just cut it out of my life. It's a platform that's approaching something like 'have an email address' or 'have a phone' in practical terms. There are workarounds but they're not as painless as simply deciding to 'use an alternative chat alternative'. It's like saying you don't like English? Well try esperanto and good luck functioning in the US. I've given some extremely exaggerated examples, particularly this last one haha, but I've found reliance on Whatsapp to be substantial and on the rise. I do agree by the way that this isn't that big a deal. I'm completely fine to continue using them, but if I wasn't the proposed 'just stop using them, there's chat alternatives' really doesn't fly. It'd be really shitty.
  - ffggvv 10y ago
    I don't use neither facebook nor whatsapp and I live perfectly fine. It's not like you stop breathing. In my experience telling people that you prefer a different medium from whatsapp is not a big deal.
    - totocino 10y ago
      Depends on where you live. You'd be a monster here if you didn't use WhatsApp :D
      - jabgrabdthrow 10y ago
        So doesn't that make that position downright dangerous? As a 3rd party to this argument, now I agree with the other guy. edit: to clarify I mean I should join the opt-out side to help stop it from becoming socially unacceptable
tszming 10y ago
Why we don't sell ads (2012) https://blog.whatsapp.com/245/Why-we-dont-sell-ads https://blog.whatsapp.com/245/Why-we-dont-sell-ads?
- nly 10y ago
  What did we really expect? That they were going to support a 1 billion user app as a public good? The writing was on the wall when they dropped the 79 pence per year fee
  - AlexandrB 10y ago
    I think that it's a good reminder that all the sentiment in the world is meaningless in the face of changing ownership and/or business realities. See also Instapaper + Pinterest. Edit - Also a reminder to founders: If you want your vision for the company to survive, don't sell it!
    - bad_user 10y ago
      Founders that sell are very much aware of this fact. If they're selling it's either because they have no choice, or because they don't believe in said vision. In the end, unless you have a strong contract that protects users with the threat of a fork, like being based on a distributed open protocol, or an open source license, it's all just bullshit and marketing, whereas aligning with your users interests is only temporary. I also think there's an inherent lesson for users here, more than it is for founders: don't trust startups, most of them won't survive and won't have the decency to die either, preferring instead to sell your account and data to the highest bidder.
      - Freak_NL 10y ago
        > If they're selling it's either because they have no choice, or because they don't believe in said vision. Or just because the price is right. Some may believe that they can do something even greater with the money, and some simply realize that a lot of money is the more attractive option for them. The latter may even have faith that the purchaser will keep the vision alive (and most will be disappointed in that respect).
mtgx 10y ago
So where is the FCC and its "20 year monitoring of Facebook's privacy policies" now? Or was that just lip service to appease the public that Facebook is doing nothing wrong, because after all, it's being watched by the FCC? https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2011/11/facebook-settles-ftc-charges-it-deceived-consumers-failing-keep https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2011/11/faceb... By the way, even if what Facebook is doing now doesn't violate that settlement with the FCC, I'm 100% certain Whatsapp was already sharing phone contacts with Facebook many months before this policy change. So at least that should've violated the settlement. It's just that they didn't get caught doing it before any official noticed. The reason I say I'm confident they were doing that is because I barely use Facebook at all on the PC, I never installed Facebook's app on my phone, and yet Facebook started suggesting me people I was talking to on Whatsapp to add as friends. And I've seen quite a few other people mention similar situations on the web as well. Why is the FCC sleeping on the job?
brakmic 10y ago
It's all about Making the World a Better Place™ ;)
wcummings 10y ago
I'm done with WhatsApp
bad_user 10y ago
The irony is that I started to use WhatsApp only 2-3 months ago after learning they are doing end to end encryption. Oh well, guess it's time to uninstall it.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  I made the move from Telegram to WhatsApp specifically because WhatsApp made end-to-end encryption the default. With Telegram you have to specify a conversation to be encrypted, and there's also controversy over the closed nature of the encryption used. I guess I'll try Signal this time? Don't know anything about it.
  - tao_oat 10y ago
    Signal is solid, though a few privacy advocates criticize the dependence on Google Play Services on Android phones. I also get the impression that development has slowed, with the developers (Open Whisper Systems) focusing on implementing the Signal Protocol in other clients (but correct me if I'm wrong). There's also the newly open-sourced Wire - it has the same dependence on Google, but it supports video calling and some might prefer their UI.
    - Siimteller 10y ago
      Wire offers APK download from wire.com/download and working on making notifications work without Google too.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - Joeboy 10y ago
    Signal replaces your SMS app, which is good because it's perfectly seamless and there's no good reason not to use it, but bad because most conversations you have with it will be unencrypted because the other user doesn't have Signal installed. Unencrypted communications look pretty much the same as encrypted ones. The strategy is to eliminate inconvenience in order to increase takeup and challenge mass surveillance. But the tradeoff is that it's not such a great solution for an individual who really wants their comms to be secure.
madeofpalk 10y ago
Sidetone, but I find it a bit rich that The Independent is going all high and mighty about privacy and sharing data, when they have the most atrocious ad and tracking experience I've seen on a media site in a long time. Ghostly found 40 trackers http://imgur.com/a/miilB http://imgur.com/a/miilB, the ads are extremely obnoxious. There's literally ads on top of ads sliding down my screen, pushing the content around. https://gfycat.com/InsecureHealthyAurochs https://gfycat.com/InsecureHealthyAurochs Those in glass houses...
- proactivesvcs 10y ago
  Goodness gracious, I hadn't realised adverts had gotten that bad again. You'd think with the ever-increasing backlash against web site advertisement they'd balk at such behaviour on their web site.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - bad_user 10y ago
    In the past I was against ad-blockers, thinking that websites need a business model to survive and that subscriptions can't work for everyone. But this has turned into a serious assault on privacy. So nowadays I have uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, the "Tracking Protection" in Firefox enabled by default and I'm seriously considering NoScript, too bad it wasn't available for Firefox Android last time I checked.
    - Yxogenium 10y ago
      For your information you can get the Firefox for Android NoScript porting with the cheeky (but somewhat relevant) name NoScript Anywhere++ (NSA++) here: https://noscript.net/nsa/ https://noscript.net/nsa/ It's quite experimental, the UI isn't great if you have a small phone but it works.
    - beagle3 10y ago
      What do privacy badger and tracking protection provide that uBlock Origin doesn't?
77yy77yy 10y ago
Whatsup was sharing info with Facebook months ago. I remember seeing a Watchapp contact as a friend recommendation on my Facebook profile. Other than that Whatsapp contact, we have nothing in common, no other way Facebook could have picked it up.
- ihowlatthemoon 10y ago
  If you've granted contacts permission to the Facebook app, it could've identified using the phone number.
  - goombastic 10y ago
    This has been my experience as well. In my case Ive never ever installed Facebook on my phone. It has to be whatsapp leaking/sharing the contacts list.
    - evgen 10y ago
      Or that contact allowing FB to scan their contact list. Remember, there are two endpoints here and if you did not allow it then is is more likely the other party did.
    - Jtsummers 10y ago
      Or the contact. It'd make sense for Facebook to try to connect people from both sides of the relationship.
zbuf 10y ago
If I haven't agreed to the Facebook T&Cs (I don't have an account) how does this affect me? I am I linking my friends accounts with lots of private data based on who I'm communicating with? In the UK, where I have to pay money for media messaging and international SMS, WhatsApp is great. It's ad policy was something of its appeal that allowed me to see past the lock-in to one vendor.
goombastic 10y ago
Facebook swiped whatsapp data a year or two ago. I've never ever installed FB on my mobile and yet it suggests whatsapp contacts as friends. It's just such a brazen move that everyone assumes it is legal.
- jsn117 10y ago
  what do you think all those billions were for?
- what_ever 10y ago
  Not saying that's not possible but it's a two way connection. May be your connections installed Facebook on their phone and FB contact permission and they got your name from there. Your phone number didn't come into picture.
bikamonki 10y ago
It's too late! Have you seen another search engine make a dent in Google's market share? How about another OS challenging Windows on a PC? Another social network? It is rather obvious that: if the main purpose of a business is to grow revenue/market share, if successful, it will eventually grow to close to 100% market share. This situation, commonly known as a monopoly, cannot be reversed by free market competition and government needs to step in, like the US government did by splitting the telcos. I can only guess (I am no expert) the challenge here is that government faces a legal void since these services are free as in no money was paid to use them. Owners of these services are on the ad business and there is plenty of competition there. Government has no interest in protecting our privacy either, on the contrary, they want in! We're left with two options: be a hermit and stop using FB and Whatsapp, or hack the system: install ad blockers + develop unofficial APIs to interact with these services on your own terms.
- stephenr 10y ago
  > It is rather obvious that: if the main purpose of a business is to grow revenue/market share, if successful, it will eventually grow to close to 100% market share. The main purpose of a business is to generate profit, not just revenue. Apple is pretty clear evidence that you don't need a massive market share to be highly profitable. > be a hermit and stop using FB and WhatsApp Is that seriously how you see this? How exactly do you think people lived 10+ years ago, before either of those things existed? I haven't had a Facebook account for many years and I've never had a WhatsApp account. Does that make me a hermit? Should I inform my wife and son? Will my friends already be aware of my hermit status, or will you inform them for me, because obviously without Facebook or WhatsApp I have no possible way to communicate with them.
  - themartorana 10y ago
    Your anecdotal experience does not change the reality of the audience that uses social networking and messaging and the dominant players in those markets. If you decided you wanted to join in your choices would be limited, and these two services dominate their respective markets.
shmel 10y ago
I don't get why everybody is pissed off. Did anybody really believe FB bought that company as a sort of charity? Surely they are interested in the exploitation of users metadata. If you don't like it, use _anything_ else. You can even use damn SMS, I guess in 2016 they are unlimited everywhere in the world.
- desas 10y ago
  MMS aren't in the UK, big use case of what's app is sharing images/s short videos privately.
bikamonki 10y ago
Relevant to this subject: https://www.ft.com/content/50bb4830-6a4c-11e6-ae5b-a7cc5dd5a28c https://www.ft.com/content/50bb4830-6a4c-11e6-ae5b-a7cc5dd5a...
FabHK 10y ago
Could everyone just please install Signal and Wire, for open-source, end-to-end encrypted communication?
- Freak_NL 10y ago
  Does Signal still require your mobile number as mandatory identifier? If privacy is what matters that is a deal breaker. Last I looked it couldn't be used with third party clients either, and any desktop client requires tethering to an Android or IOS smartphone. Wire looks a bit more sensible, but still works exclusively on their servers.
  - edent 10y ago
    Yes and Yes. Signal also doesn't support encrypted backup, so if you change devices you have to export to plaintext.
- themartorana 10y ago
  I want to. But it took enough time to get the entire family using WhatsApp. We have so much history in those groups and conversations. I'd very much like to be able to change over (and when ads start creeping in, probably will just bite the bullet) but I really hoped it wouldn't come to this. Oh well. Edit: we started using WhatsApp many years ago before the FB purchase, when not only did iMessage suck for groups - oh wait, it still does - and text messaging was expensive, but we needed something stable and cross-platform. WhatsApp delivered on all of that, where iMessage was decidedly iOS only, BBM kept reaching its hand out of the grave but not for long, and Google offerings were impossible for 75 year old relatives to understand. I still like WhatsApp, and the server tech is tops. Too bad it's going this way.
- cJ0th 10y ago
  Got a wire account a few days ago. While my experience on linux was alright a friend of mine went through a lot of trouble. After the activation he couldn't log in using the browser. It said "no connection" even though that wasn't true. He then installed the Windows desktop app which forced him to upload a photo, which he actually didn't wanted to. Apparently there was a button to skip this step but it didn't work. After some time we were finally chatting for a while. While we both enjoyed the fact that it is secure, open-source and has some great features (like the yt video integration) he found the desktop client "confusing" (don't really know what exactly he meant by that tbh). At this point we were unsure whether or not we wanted to continue using wire in the future. But then his desktop application crashed and he couldn't start it anymore. He tried the web app again but it still wouldn't work. Long story short: Chances are we are not going to use wire again in the future. And this is really unfortunate as I'd prefer to use it! The problem is: convincing people to try it is hard enough. If then their first experience isn't super smooth they a.) won't use it and b.) are probably less open to try a different messenger in the future. And now what? We can't resort to Signal as I still prefer using a dumb phone. And then there is Telegram but I don't trust their security measures. What's more, I really don't see the necessity to tell a messenger my phone number.
unicornporn 10y ago
If I delete my account now, will my (meta)data still be shared with the big F?
- giancarlostoro 10y ago
  They make profiles for people even if they don't have them. Your data will survive in some form.
technofiend 10y ago
If Facebook wasn't famous for keeping all data they collect I would just swap my phone number for another, like a throw away VoIP line. Retroactive declarations like this should be illegal.
- ktamiola 10y ago
  I couldn't agree more!

191 points by breitling 10y ago

Direct link to the article instead of a google redirect: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/whatsapp-data-sharing-with-facebook-opting-out-of-new-terms-doesnt-actually-stop-facebook-taking-a7213221.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...

BinaryIdiot 10y ago

The terms mention this explicitly and it was talked about when the original stories broke; is there anything new here? I didn't see anything at least. The data WhatsApp will still share with Facebook is the type of data that can be anonymized and while I'm not saying it will (I mean why would they bother? Probably more valuable to NOT anonymize) it's the typical data most apps are collecting.

maccard 10y ago

Well this is kind of obvious, is it not? Of course Facebook is going to have access to your data, they run the service. It's the same as expecting Google to not have access to your nest data, or Amazon to not have access to your twitch data. If it turns out that they're still using our data for advertisement purposes between the two platforms after opting out, then we can be outraged.

danieldk 10y ago
Well this is kind of obvious, is it not? Of course Facebook is going to have access to your data, they run the service. It's the same as expecting Google to not have access to your nest data, or Amazon to not have access to your twitch data. The problem is that when Whatsapp gained traction, they were a company that built much of their reputation on charging a small yearly fee rather than selling your data or putting up advertisements. Or to quote 2012's Whatsapp once more: Advertising isn't just the disruption of aesthetics, the insults to your intelligence and the interruption of your train of thought. At every company that sells ads, a significant portion of their engineering team spends their day tuning data mining, writing better code to collect all your personal data, upgrading the servers that hold all the data and making sure it's all being logged and collated and sliced and packaged and shipped out... And at the end of the day the result of it all is a slightly different advertising banner in your browser or on your mobile screen. Remember, when advertising is involved you the user are the product. https://blog.whatsapp.com/245/Why-we-dont-sell-ads https://blog.whatsapp.com/245/Why-we-dont-sell-ads? It's clear why people are upset.
- maccard 10y ago
  That's a different argument, and a different article. The topic at hand is that the opt out doesn't stop Facebook accessing the whatsapp data, only prevents them from using it for advertising purposes.

patrickaljord 10y ago

I don't get the problem. If you don't trust them why don't you just stop using them? It's not like it's a government spying program you're being forced into and it's not like there aren't a gazillions chat apps alternatives. Also the intersection of people who use whatsapp and have no Facebook already on their phone with access to contacts must be pretty small so not sure this change is as controversial as claimed in this article.

IkmoIkmo 10y ago
Really? All my friends, my boss, the shop I just bought a new suit at, my municipality, they're all on whatsapp nowadays. It's a pretty big deal to just cut it out of my life. It's a platform that's approaching something like 'have an email address' or 'have a phone' in practical terms. There are workarounds but they're not as painless as simply deciding to 'use an alternative chat alternative'. It's like saying you don't like English? Well try esperanto and good luck functioning in the US. I've given some extremely exaggerated examples, particularly this last one haha, but I've found reliance on Whatsapp to be substantial and on the rise. I do agree by the way that this isn't that big a deal. I'm completely fine to continue using them, but if I wasn't the proposed 'just stop using them, there's chat alternatives' really doesn't fly. It'd be really shitty.
- ffggvv 10y ago
  I don't use neither facebook nor whatsapp and I live perfectly fine. It's not like you stop breathing. In my experience telling people that you prefer a different medium from whatsapp is not a big deal.
  - totocino 10y ago
    Depends on where you live. You'd be a monster here if you didn't use WhatsApp :D
    - jabgrabdthrow 10y ago
      So doesn't that make that position downright dangerous? As a 3rd party to this argument, now I agree with the other guy. edit: to clarify I mean I should join the opt-out side to help stop it from becoming socially unacceptable

tszming 10y ago

Why we don't sell ads (2012) https://blog.whatsapp.com/245/Why-we-dont-sell-ads https://blog.whatsapp.com/245/Why-we-dont-sell-ads?

nly 10y ago
What did we really expect? That they were going to support a 1 billion user app as a public good? The writing was on the wall when they dropped the 79 pence per year fee
- AlexandrB 10y ago
  I think that it's a good reminder that all the sentiment in the world is meaningless in the face of changing ownership and/or business realities. See also Instapaper + Pinterest. Edit - Also a reminder to founders: If you want your vision for the company to survive, don't sell it!
  - bad_user 10y ago
    Founders that sell are very much aware of this fact. If they're selling it's either because they have no choice, or because they don't believe in said vision. In the end, unless you have a strong contract that protects users with the threat of a fork, like being based on a distributed open protocol, or an open source license, it's all just bullshit and marketing, whereas aligning with your users interests is only temporary. I also think there's an inherent lesson for users here, more than it is for founders: don't trust startups, most of them won't survive and won't have the decency to die either, preferring instead to sell your account and data to the highest bidder.
    - Freak_NL 10y ago
      > If they're selling it's either because they have no choice, or because they don't believe in said vision. Or just because the price is right. Some may believe that they can do something even greater with the money, and some simply realize that a lot of money is the more attractive option for them. The latter may even have faith that the purchaser will keep the vision alive (and most will be disappointed in that respect).

mtgx 10y ago

So where is the FCC and its "20 year monitoring of Facebook's privacy policies" now? Or was that just lip service to appease the public that Facebook is doing nothing wrong, because after all, it's being watched by the FCC? https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2011/11/facebook-settles-ftc-charges-it-deceived-consumers-failing-keep https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2011/11/faceb... By the way, even if what Facebook is doing now doesn't violate that settlement with the FCC, I'm 100% certain Whatsapp was already sharing phone contacts with Facebook many months before this policy change. So at least that should've violated the settlement. It's just that they didn't get caught doing it before any official noticed. The reason I say I'm confident they were doing that is because I barely use Facebook at all on the PC, I never installed Facebook's app on my phone, and yet Facebook started suggesting me people I was talking to on Whatsapp to add as friends. And I've seen quite a few other people mention similar situations on the web as well. Why is the FCC sleeping on the job?

brakmic 10y ago

It's all about Making the World a Better Place™ ;)

wcummings 10y ago

I'm done with WhatsApp

bad_user 10y ago

The irony is that I started to use WhatsApp only 2-3 months ago after learning they are doing end to end encryption. Oh well, guess it's time to uninstall it.

whamlastxmas 10y ago
I made the move from Telegram to WhatsApp specifically because WhatsApp made end-to-end encryption the default. With Telegram you have to specify a conversation to be encrypted, and there's also controversy over the closed nature of the encryption used. I guess I'll try Signal this time? Don't know anything about it.
- tao_oat 10y ago
  Signal is solid, though a few privacy advocates criticize the dependence on Google Play Services on Android phones. I also get the impression that development has slowed, with the developers (Open Whisper Systems) focusing on implementing the Signal Protocol in other clients (but correct me if I'm wrong). There's also the newly open-sourced Wire - it has the same dependence on Google, but it supports video calling and some might prefer their UI.
  - Siimteller 10y ago
    Wire offers APK download from wire.com/download and working on making notifications work without Google too.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- Joeboy 10y ago
  Signal replaces your SMS app, which is good because it's perfectly seamless and there's no good reason not to use it, but bad because most conversations you have with it will be unencrypted because the other user doesn't have Signal installed. Unencrypted communications look pretty much the same as encrypted ones. The strategy is to eliminate inconvenience in order to increase takeup and challenge mass surveillance. But the tradeoff is that it's not such a great solution for an individual who really wants their comms to be secure.

madeofpalk 10y ago

Sidetone, but I find it a bit rich that The Independent is going all high and mighty about privacy and sharing data, when they have the most atrocious ad and tracking experience I've seen on a media site in a long time. Ghostly found 40 trackers http://imgur.com/a/miilB http://imgur.com/a/miilB, the ads are extremely obnoxious. There's literally ads on top of ads sliding down my screen, pushing the content around. https://gfycat.com/InsecureHealthyAurochs https://gfycat.com/InsecureHealthyAurochs Those in glass houses...

proactivesvcs 10y ago
Goodness gracious, I hadn't realised adverts had gotten that bad again. You'd think with the ever-increasing backlash against web site advertisement they'd balk at such behaviour on their web site.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- bad_user 10y ago
  In the past I was against ad-blockers, thinking that websites need a business model to survive and that subscriptions can't work for everyone. But this has turned into a serious assault on privacy. So nowadays I have uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, the "Tracking Protection" in Firefox enabled by default and I'm seriously considering NoScript, too bad it wasn't available for Firefox Android last time I checked.
  - Yxogenium 10y ago
    For your information you can get the Firefox for Android NoScript porting with the cheeky (but somewhat relevant) name NoScript Anywhere++ (NSA++) here: https://noscript.net/nsa/ https://noscript.net/nsa/ It's quite experimental, the UI isn't great if you have a small phone but it works.
  - beagle3 10y ago
    What do privacy badger and tracking protection provide that uBlock Origin doesn't?

77yy77yy 10y ago

Whatsup was sharing info with Facebook months ago. I remember seeing a Watchapp contact as a friend recommendation on my Facebook profile. Other than that Whatsapp contact, we have nothing in common, no other way Facebook could have picked it up.

ihowlatthemoon 10y ago
If you've granted contacts permission to the Facebook app, it could've identified using the phone number.
- goombastic 10y ago
  This has been my experience as well. In my case Ive never ever installed Facebook on my phone. It has to be whatsapp leaking/sharing the contacts list.
  - evgen 10y ago
    Or that contact allowing FB to scan their contact list. Remember, there are two endpoints here and if you did not allow it then is is more likely the other party did.
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    Or the contact. It'd make sense for Facebook to try to connect people from both sides of the relationship.

zbuf 10y ago

If I haven't agreed to the Facebook T&Cs (I don't have an account) how does this affect me? I am I linking my friends accounts with lots of private data based on who I'm communicating with? In the UK, where I have to pay money for media messaging and international SMS, WhatsApp is great. It's ad policy was something of its appeal that allowed me to see past the lock-in to one vendor.

goombastic 10y ago

Facebook swiped whatsapp data a year or two ago. I've never ever installed FB on my mobile and yet it suggests whatsapp contacts as friends. It's just such a brazen move that everyone assumes it is legal.

jsn117 10y ago
what do you think all those billions were for?
what_ever 10y ago
Not saying that's not possible but it's a two way connection. May be your connections installed Facebook on their phone and FB contact permission and they got your name from there. Your phone number didn't come into picture.

bikamonki 10y ago

It's too late! Have you seen another search engine make a dent in Google's market share? How about another OS challenging Windows on a PC? Another social network? It is rather obvious that: if the main purpose of a business is to grow revenue/market share, if successful, it will eventually grow to close to 100% market share. This situation, commonly known as a monopoly, cannot be reversed by free market competition and government needs to step in, like the US government did by splitting the telcos. I can only guess (I am no expert) the challenge here is that government faces a legal void since these services are free as in no money was paid to use them. Owners of these services are on the ad business and there is plenty of competition there. Government has no interest in protecting our privacy either, on the contrary, they want in! We're left with two options: be a hermit and stop using FB and Whatsapp, or hack the system: install ad blockers + develop unofficial APIs to interact with these services on your own terms.

stephenr 10y ago
> It is rather obvious that: if the main purpose of a business is to grow revenue/market share, if successful, it will eventually grow to close to 100% market share. The main purpose of a business is to generate profit, not just revenue. Apple is pretty clear evidence that you don't need a massive market share to be highly profitable. > be a hermit and stop using FB and WhatsApp Is that seriously how you see this? How exactly do you think people lived 10+ years ago, before either of those things existed? I haven't had a Facebook account for many years and I've never had a WhatsApp account. Does that make me a hermit? Should I inform my wife and son? Will my friends already be aware of my hermit status, or will you inform them for me, because obviously without Facebook or WhatsApp I have no possible way to communicate with them.
- themartorana 10y ago
  Your anecdotal experience does not change the reality of the audience that uses social networking and messaging and the dominant players in those markets. If you decided you wanted to join in your choices would be limited, and these two services dominate their respective markets.

shmel 10y ago

I don't get why everybody is pissed off. Did anybody really believe FB bought that company as a sort of charity? Surely they are interested in the exploitation of users metadata. If you don't like it, use _anything_ else. You can even use damn SMS, I guess in 2016 they are unlimited everywhere in the world.

desas 10y ago
MMS aren't in the UK, big use case of what's app is sharing images/s short videos privately.

bikamonki 10y ago

Relevant to this subject: https://www.ft.com/content/50bb4830-6a4c-11e6-ae5b-a7cc5dd5a28c https://www.ft.com/content/50bb4830-6a4c-11e6-ae5b-a7cc5dd5a...

FabHK 10y ago

Could everyone just please install Signal and Wire, for open-source, end-to-end encrypted communication?

Freak_NL 10y ago
Does Signal still require your mobile number as mandatory identifier? If privacy is what matters that is a deal breaker. Last I looked it couldn't be used with third party clients either, and any desktop client requires tethering to an Android or IOS smartphone. Wire looks a bit more sensible, but still works exclusively on their servers.
- edent 10y ago
  Yes and Yes. Signal also doesn't support encrypted backup, so if you change devices you have to export to plaintext.
themartorana 10y ago
I want to. But it took enough time to get the entire family using WhatsApp. We have so much history in those groups and conversations. I'd very much like to be able to change over (and when ads start creeping in, probably will just bite the bullet) but I really hoped it wouldn't come to this. Oh well. Edit: we started using WhatsApp many years ago before the FB purchase, when not only did iMessage suck for groups - oh wait, it still does - and text messaging was expensive, but we needed something stable and cross-platform. WhatsApp delivered on all of that, where iMessage was decidedly iOS only, BBM kept reaching its hand out of the grave but not for long, and Google offerings were impossible for 75 year old relatives to understand. I still like WhatsApp, and the server tech is tops. Too bad it's going this way.
cJ0th 10y ago
Got a wire account a few days ago. While my experience on linux was alright a friend of mine went through a lot of trouble. After the activation he couldn't log in using the browser. It said "no connection" even though that wasn't true. He then installed the Windows desktop app which forced him to upload a photo, which he actually didn't wanted to. Apparently there was a button to skip this step but it didn't work. After some time we were finally chatting for a while. While we both enjoyed the fact that it is secure, open-source and has some great features (like the yt video integration) he found the desktop client "confusing" (don't really know what exactly he meant by that tbh). At this point we were unsure whether or not we wanted to continue using wire in the future. But then his desktop application crashed and he couldn't start it anymore. He tried the web app again but it still wouldn't work. Long story short: Chances are we are not going to use wire again in the future. And this is really unfortunate as I'd prefer to use it! The problem is: convincing people to try it is hard enough. If then their first experience isn't super smooth they a.) won't use it and b.) are probably less open to try a different messenger in the future. And now what? We can't resort to Signal as I still prefer using a dumb phone. And then there is Telegram but I don't trust their security measures. What's more, I really don't see the necessity to tell a messenger my phone number.

unicornporn 10y ago

If I delete my account now, will my (meta)data still be shared with the big F?

giancarlostoro 10y ago
They make profiles for people even if they don't have them. Your data will survive in some form.

technofiend 10y ago

If Facebook wasn't famous for keeping all data they collect I would just swap my phone number for another, like a throw away VoIP line. Retroactive declarations like this should be illegal.

ktamiola 10y ago
I couldn't agree more!