3 ms·

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 co

by 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.

by iaw 10y ago

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.