4 ms·

Anybody feels for discussing the actual meat of the post (consumer watchdogs actually threatening to sue Facebook) instead of discussing the alternatives or the

Anybody feels for discussing the actual meat of the post (consumer watchdogs actually threatening to sue Facebook) instead of discussing the alternatives or the lack of proper encryption in Telegram yet again? I for one am very happy to see this, both because it might teach Facebook and others a valuable lesson about messing with European consumers and because I used to love the old Whatsapp.

bad_user 10y ago
In all fairness, the old WhatsApp did not have end to end encryption. And the partnership with Open Whisper Systems for implementing that has been announced after the acquisition announcement. It was probably planned in advanced, but it was developed and deployed during Facebook's ownership. And I know that the old WhatsApp was promising privacy and a no ads business model, but you can't really promise privacy while unencrypted chat messages are flowing through your servers. That said, Facebook can still violate people's privacy just by having access to the metadata and I hope such lawsuit will revert this decision, at least in the EU.
iaw 10y ago
A few thoughts: * Encryption is one possible response to the broader concern around what companies are doing with user data * The broader concern, what are companies doing with our data, is often only spoken of from the consumer perspective. Consumers don't want liberties taken with their personal information, the nightmare scenario is that no one has privacy. * From a business perspective: what should FB and WhatsApp do? People are accustomed to getting free services on the internet, it's been that way since the beginning, but these services have always cost someone something. It's not feasible to charge for most messaging services due to competitive reasons. * On the one side we have a nightmare scenario that no one wants, on the other we have the realistic economics of providing a service. Is there a compromise where the consumers can trust the providers to not harm them while still allowing the providers to make money? As an aside: Telegram is not, and never will-be, a secure platform as has been detailed on HN by cryptographic experts when the service first launched.
- amelius 10y ago
  > Encryption is one possible response to the broader concern around what companies are doing with user data And note that even with encryption, companies can still use our meta-data.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  > From a business perspective: what should FB and WhatsApp do? V e r y simple: stuck to the existing business model. Or: if they really needed to make it free for consumers: their second idea, free for consumers, charge for business access (api etc). I was actually looking forward to that. > As an aside: Telegram is not, and never will-be, a secure platform as has been detailed on HN by cryptographic experts when the service first launched. Neither is twitter. I don't see any of you complain about how tweets are public for the world to see. Telegram isn't a tool to defeat NSA, it is a tool to send stuff faster than email, with 100% less Facebook. I can admit though that Telgrams marketing of their encryption has been at least borderline dishones.
  - iaw 10y ago
    > I can admit though that Telgrams marketing of their encryption has been at least borderline dishones. So, 100% Facebook free with a company that is borderline dishonest in how it communicates about the things we can confirm... Why is that the better devil?
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      Telegram was borderline dishonest. Facebook is dishonest which is why consumer watchdogs are threatening to sue.
- viola11 10y ago
  Look, the details of FBs operation are certainly not a concern for the consumers: the consumers have the right to get their privacy respected and there is no right FB can invoke to counter it. The truth is that people do pay for messaging on the internet (email), just not the huge user base a popular free service can get. As things stands, it does look like the only way to make lots of money out of huge user bases is by selling targeted ads, which in practice seems to be a rather unsavory business that shouldn't be trusted.
zigzigzag 10y ago
What lesson are they supposed to draw from this? WhatsApp is free, popular and end to end encrypted. There is only one app that meets all those criteria, which is the one we're talking about. WhatsApp is probably not that expensive to run but it's also not free, and acquiring the company certainly wasn't. So Facebook have found a way to combine end to end encryption with an ad-supported business model: use the social graph data and business integration to improve FB ads. To me this seems like pure win: Facebook already had ads, so it's just a matter of them getting better. WhatsApp can be free for everyone in a sustainable way, instead of the western-iOS-users-get-to-pay-for-everyone model WhatsApp used before. The habit EU governmental bodies have developed of constantly threatening internet companies whenever they change their products is meanwhile turning into noise: any impact it could have had has been lost because these cases are so often frivolous and/or can't actually demonstrate actual harm to anyone. More and more it looks like EU governments simply like bashing American companies, which probably looks free to them: free money and free voter love from the socialist side of the spectrum. Going back to the question of what lesson to draw from this: there IS a downside, which is that in future tech companies will prefer not to set up offices in Europe at all, but they can't see that. "Set up shop and avoid punishment by being good" is no option because these judgements are so often extremely vague, unpredictable or simply contradict the need of a business to generate revenue to sustain itself. BTW good luck charging Germans for WhatsApp given how few of them have credit cards.
- tw04 10y ago
  >To me this seems like pure win: Facebook already had ads, so it's just a matter of them getting better. WhatsApp can be free for everyone in a sustainable way, instead of the western-iOS-users-get-to-pay-for-everyone model WhatsApp used before. In what way is that a win? Giving up my privacy to save $1/year? Please, I'll take privacy all day long. As for EU governments "hating" American companies: BS. They're actually sticking up for user rights and privacy rights. Something I wish the US would do.
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    If you're so worried about "giving up" your privacy, why do you have a Facebook account to begin with?

bad_user 10y ago

In all fairness, the old WhatsApp did not have end to end encryption. And the partnership with Open Whisper Systems for implementing that has been announced after the acquisition announcement. It was probably planned in advanced, but it was developed and deployed during Facebook's ownership. And I know that the old WhatsApp was promising privacy and a no ads business model, but you can't really promise privacy while unencrypted chat messages are flowing through your servers. That said, Facebook can still violate people's privacy just by having access to the metadata and I hope such lawsuit will revert this decision, at least in the EU.

iaw 10y ago

A few thoughts: * Encryption is one possible response to the broader concern around what companies are doing with user data * The broader concern, what are companies doing with our data, is often only spoken of from the consumer perspective. Consumers don't want liberties taken with their personal information, the nightmare scenario is that no one has privacy. * From a business perspective: what should FB and WhatsApp do? People are accustomed to getting free services on the internet, it's been that way since the beginning, but these services have always cost someone something. It's not feasible to charge for most messaging services due to competitive reasons. * On the one side we have a nightmare scenario that no one wants, on the other we have the realistic economics of providing a service. Is there a compromise where the consumers can trust the providers to not harm them while still allowing the providers to make money? As an aside: Telegram is not, and never will-be, a secure platform as has been detailed on HN by cryptographic experts when the service first launched.

amelius 10y ago
> Encryption is one possible response to the broader concern around what companies are doing with user data And note that even with encryption, companies can still use our meta-data.
reitanqild 10y ago
> From a business perspective: what should FB and WhatsApp do? V e r y simple: stuck to the existing business model. Or: if they really needed to make it free for consumers: their second idea, free for consumers, charge for business access (api etc). I was actually looking forward to that. > As an aside: Telegram is not, and never will-be, a secure platform as has been detailed on HN by cryptographic experts when the service first launched. Neither is twitter. I don't see any of you complain about how tweets are public for the world to see. Telegram isn't a tool to defeat NSA, it is a tool to send stuff faster than email, with 100% less Facebook. I can admit though that Telgrams marketing of their encryption has been at least borderline dishones.
- iaw 10y ago
  > I can admit though that Telgrams marketing of their encryption has been at least borderline dishones. So, 100% Facebook free with a company that is borderline dishonest in how it communicates about the things we can confirm... Why is that the better devil?
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    Telegram was borderline dishonest. Facebook is dishonest which is why consumer watchdogs are threatening to sue.
viola11 10y ago
Look, the details of FBs operation are certainly not a concern for the consumers: the consumers have the right to get their privacy respected and there is no right FB can invoke to counter it. The truth is that people do pay for messaging on the internet (email), just not the huge user base a popular free service can get. As things stands, it does look like the only way to make lots of money out of huge user bases is by selling targeted ads, which in practice seems to be a rather unsavory business that shouldn't be trusted.

zigzigzag 10y ago

What lesson are they supposed to draw from this? WhatsApp is free, popular and end to end encrypted. There is only one app that meets all those criteria, which is the one we're talking about. WhatsApp is probably not that expensive to run but it's also not free, and acquiring the company certainly wasn't. So Facebook have found a way to combine end to end encryption with an ad-supported business model: use the social graph data and business integration to improve FB ads. To me this seems like pure win: Facebook already had ads, so it's just a matter of them getting better. WhatsApp can be free for everyone in a sustainable way, instead of the western-iOS-users-get-to-pay-for-everyone model WhatsApp used before. The habit EU governmental bodies have developed of constantly threatening internet companies whenever they change their products is meanwhile turning into noise: any impact it could have had has been lost because these cases are so often frivolous and/or can't actually demonstrate actual harm to anyone. More and more it looks like EU governments simply like bashing American companies, which probably looks free to them: free money and free voter love from the socialist side of the spectrum. Going back to the question of what lesson to draw from this: there IS a downside, which is that in future tech companies will prefer not to set up offices in Europe at all, but they can't see that. "Set up shop and avoid punishment by being good" is no option because these judgements are so often extremely vague, unpredictable or simply contradict the need of a business to generate revenue to sustain itself. BTW good luck charging Germans for WhatsApp given how few of them have credit cards.

tw04 10y ago
>To me this seems like pure win: Facebook already had ads, so it's just a matter of them getting better. WhatsApp can be free for everyone in a sustainable way, instead of the western-iOS-users-get-to-pay-for-everyone model WhatsApp used before. In what way is that a win? Giving up my privacy to save $1/year? Please, I'll take privacy all day long. As for EU governments "hating" American companies: BS. They're actually sticking up for user rights and privacy rights. Something I wish the US would do.
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  If you're so worried about "giving up" your privacy, why do you have a Facebook account to begin with?