63 ms·

Facebook Ordered to Stop Collecting Data on WhatsApp Users in Germany

658 points by mh-cx 10y ago

throwawayReply 10y ago
How does this work, if I travel to Germany and use WhatsApp is Facebook compelled to delete all the shared data they have on me?
- kuschku 10y ago
  Likely they'll do it based on the phone number prefix +49
  - nowlnowl 10y ago
    I sense a new market. German number-as-a-Service...
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Grangar 10y ago
      This will be on Show HN in 2 weeks, calling it now.
      - webjunkie 10y ago
        Get one on Twilio, set it up so you get the verification code, finished. Right?
- teamhappy 10y ago
  I guess that's Facebook's problem now. WhatsApp uses phone numbers as logins though, doesn't it? Shouldn't be too hard to map providers to different countries.
- BostX 10y ago
  I heared facebook installs a big "Delete my data" button made of granit on a main square in every german city. You have to double click it. With your head.
- bogomipz 10y ago
  I would think it would be either by German carriers or else country code of the phone.
Tomte 10y ago
Hamburg's data commissioner is influential because he is very active and outspoken (the previous one was even more so), but that also means that he's a bit fast and loose. His opinions and rulings are not always held up by the courts, and the other states' data commissioners (there are fifteen more, plus a federal one) quite often don't agree with him.
- veddox 10y ago
  It just takes one loud voice to start a debate.
- kuschku 10y ago
  Although the data commissioner of Schleswig-Holstein almost always backs Hamburg’s commissioner.
mkagenius 10y ago
There is one funny one: http://www.ndtv.com/blog/why-i-took-whatsapp-to-court-by-a-19-year-old-student-1466535 http://www.ndtv.com/blog/why-i-took-whatsapp-to-court-by-a-1...
- thecatspaw 10y ago
  "please turn off your adblocker" yeah, no thanks. Do you have another link?
  - drusepth 10y ago
    In case OP doesn't, here's the article anyway: http://imgur.com/a/8MogG http://imgur.com/a/8MogG The ads could have been much worse.
    - hackernews2000 10y ago
      If you use Firefox, next time press SHIFT + F2, then type in "screenshot --fullpage" and press enter.
      - drusepth 10y ago
        That's an awesome feature, thanks for the tip. Will definitely keep it in mind when I'm on a machine with FF installed!
  - Mithaldu 10y ago
    Just load it with javascript disabled. You may need to find a sane browser for that. Opera 12 does that job fine for me.
    - strugglefun 10y ago
      or http://textise.net http://textise.net . Edit: Example Result: https://www.textise.net/showText.aspx?strURL=http%253A//www.ndtv.com/blog/why-i-took-whatsapp-to-court-by-a-19-year-old-student-1466535 https://www.textise.net/showText.aspx?strURL=http%253A//www....
smoyer 10y ago
Now things are going to get interesting! I completely understand the desire for privacy but I think it's unrealistic to expect that Facebook won't consolidate its data by user across all their applications. Facebook (and Google, etc.) are now in the same business as the credit reporting agencies ... You are their only product. My hope is that the increasing outrage will drive users to one of the secure messaging applications. Disclaimer: I have neither a Facebook nor a WhatsApp account.
- danieldk 10y ago
  Now things are going to get interesting! I completely understand the desire for privacy but I thinkmit's unrealistic to expect that Facebook won't consolidate its data by user across all their applications. Facebook (and Google, etc.) are now in the same business as the credit reporting agencies ... You are their only product. The difference in this particular case is that Whatsapp made an explicit promise that they would not start sharing their data. Respect for your privacy is coded into our DNA, and we built WhatsApp around the goal of knowing as little about you as possible: You don't have to give us your name and we don't ask for your email address. We don’t know your birthday. We don’t know your home address. We don’t know where you work. We don’t know your likes, what you search for on the internet or collect your GPS location. None of that data has ever been collected and stored by WhatsApp, and we really have no plans to change that. If partnering with Facebook meant that we had to change our values, we wouldn’t have done it. Instead, we are forming a partnership that would allow us to continue operating independently and autonomously. Our fundamental values and beliefs will not change. Our principles will not change. Everything that has made WhatsApp the leader in personal messaging will still be in place. Speculation to the contrary isn’t just baseless and unfounded, it’s irresponsible. It has the effect of scaring people into thinking we’re suddenly collecting all kinds of new data. That’s just not true, and it’s important to us that you know that. Make no mistake: our future partnership with Facebook will not compromise the vision that brought us to this point. Our focus remains on delivering the promise of WhatsApp far and wide, so that people around the world have the freedom to speak their mind without fear. https://blog.whatsapp.com/529/Setting-the-record-straight https://blog.whatsapp.com/529/Setting-the-record-straight
icantdrive55 10y ago
I would like to see a federal Staute inacted regarding the collection of user data in the US. Enacted quickly! Something on the lines of don't collect any data, besides name, password, email address. This information can never be sold. I have weird feeling, in the near future, we will find that information/data has been abused. No just abused by marketing/big data, etc.. And I'm not even arguing about the obvious--personal privacy. Although personal privacy should be the number one reason for this hypothetical statute. I have a feeling, it will be the next big financial insider trading scandal. It will involve people we talk about here-- Google/Bing/FB insiders(the ones who can see individual IP's, and their data.), took all that information, and traded stock upon it. I have a hard time believing every email that Warren Buffet/George Sorrows/every sussessful trader makes isn't looked at by someone. And it's not just email; it collating search histories, in order to get a "feeling" of where the money to is to be made. They are then using that info. to invest in stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.. And yes, they will claim we don't care about getting insider info. on investments--we make a killing selling the data to marketers. Why would we do such a thing? Because you can. I would have a hard time not looking at that information, and I don't have a penny to gamble. I think it will be a huge story. (Edit to a legitimate question about the poor websites that depend on advertising.) Yes--I didn't bring up advertising. They could advertise like the old days, like newspapers did. They just couldn't target market their advertising--like they presently do at nausium. I still think they would make their nut. They would still be winners! And yes--I would pay for the right service, if they couldn't manage to compete by being hobbled with not targeted advertising. I paid for many websites before Google made advertising a science. My post has nothing to do with advertising. I get advertising. Just leave my detailed, personal info. out of it.)
- chii 10y ago
  > Something on the lines of don't collect any data, besides name, password, email address. This information can never be sold. Would you then pay for the services in full that you now could use for free?
  - bonoboTP 10y ago
    Maybe yes, maybe not. So what? It should still be forbidden. If it turns out that not enough people want to pay for it, then tough luck for the company, they should design something that people will pay for. For example it is forbidden to take organs from people as payment. We could forbid taking certain private data from masses of people as payment.
kbart 10y ago
“It has to be their decision, whether they want to connect their account with Facebook,” Johannes Caspar, the Hamburg data protection commissioner, said in a statement. “Therefore, Facebook has to ask for their permission in advance. This has not happened.” That's a fair point. I don't use WhatsApp, so did it asked to accept new privacy policy, terms & conditions or smth? Anyway, I'm happy to see that institutions in Europe take a stance against big corps to protect its users lately.
- rmc 10y ago
  I don't think dense legalise in a click through can count as "consent"
  - danarmak 10y ago
    This is a real problem. What's the alternative? The TOS does need to express the desired purpose and to hold up in court if required. Some licenses are much simpler than others, but some are necessarily complex. The GPL is much shorter than most click-through TOSs, but an average user still isn't going to read it.
    - wsy 10y ago
      German law requires to use opt-in, i.e. the default setting of agreements to transfer data to other parties must be 'no' (or the checkbox must be empty). That way, it is very easy to make sure there is explicit consent to transfer of data, and the service provider can't hide it in the TOS. Of course, the service provider is also free to limit or close its services to users that do not consent. That is actually what the German data protection watchdog refers to: the WhatsApp setting that controls if the data is transmitted is by default enabled (opt-out), but should be disabled (opt-in).
      - danarmak 10y ago
        I don't think this is very useful in most cases. Suppose a service requires data transmission to operate, either intrinsically, or it just chooses to require it. It displays a checkbox, unchecked by default, and unless the user checks it, the service isn't going to work; checking the checkbox is functionally equivalent to the "I Agree" TOS button. I expect users will check the checkbox without reading any explanations, just as today they click "I Agree" without reading anything. And if this is a legal requirement, then service providers are greatly incentivized to require data transmission as a condition of using the service. If it's optional, then very few users will go into settings and enable it. If it's mandatory, then all users are going to agree, in order to use the service.
hiisukun 10y ago
Regardless of how this ends up working or being decided, I'm very happy to see such discussion occurring. The large scale collection of data on users has benefits both nominally 'good' and 'evil' - from app UX to advertising profits. But equally interesting are the potential drawbacks involving privacy concerns, and lack of user awareness. It is this last point that I find best remedied by articles like this appearing in widely available media publications. When a discussion is on HN I might learn a lot and reflect upon my choices. When the nytimes and German privacy commissioner start a conversation, I consider that even more valuable. Hopefully a balanced outcome will occur, but I don't see that as important as the inevitable education that comes with such public debate.
- s3r3nity 10y ago
  This is probably nitpicky, but I'm not sure I buy this idea that "advertising profits" are "evil" - last I checked I happily use a Facebook account and all its features, built by extremely hard-working and intelligent engineers, without paying a dime. Not to mention the fact that I don't want to pay, and some people just can't.
  - shopkins 10y ago
    It's not the profits, but the practices that generate those profits, which people consider evil.
Kenji 10y ago
I don't understand why the state has to become involved. Let the free market work and people decide for themselves. I stopped using WhatsApp the moment I read that facebook bought it.
- yulaow 10y ago
  Privacy is strongly regulated in EU, there was a strong push for it from both our legislators and normal citizens. We asked the states to be involved and not let the "free market" decide by itself. In my state one of the most important and independent role in government is the "Privacy Regulator" which has the power to check, verify and impose strong regulations on how you manage others data, and is very active.
  - rglullis 10y ago
    I'm sad to inform you, this is a horrible trap you and many Europeans fall into. All of this legislation comes from lobby groups representing the big telcos, who are just desperately looking for ways to keep the OTT's away. Just a couple of weeks ago a draft bill was published indicating that OTT's must be able to comply with the same regulations as a telco, which means, among things like "ability to call emergency services", that end-to-end encryption would NOT be allowed, because end-to-end encryption kills the capacity for "lawful interception". [1] [1]: FT article, looks like it paywalled, link to google cache: "Brussels to tighten grip on web services in telecoms shake-up" https://goo.gl/MFYaIx https://goo.gl/MFYaIx
    - kaybe 10y ago
      So would you say the situation is worse than elsewhere? Especially considering we are not US citizens and thus free game under the US constitution.
      - rglullis 10y ago
        All that I can say is that if we actually had free markets, one's citizenship wouldn't matter at all. For better or for worse, it would be up to individuals to inform ourselves and seek privacy, security and financial profits as we see fit.
patrickaljord 10y ago
Facebook asked WhatsApp users to give consent before collecting data, which some did. Why should the government intervine between consenting adults agreeing on a contract willfully? Isn't this the definition of tyranny and why we oppose things such as the war on drugs?
- Grangar 10y ago
  These terms and conditions are untransparent garbage. It's estimated that if a person was to read everything they agree too, they'd be busy 24/7.
  - necessity 10y ago
    I remember there was a website that supplied tl;drs of EULAs from popular websites. Anyone knows it?
    - heinrich5991 10y ago
      Googling "tldr eula" gives me https://tosdr.org/ https://tosdr.org/.
- pille 10y ago
  > intervine between consenting adults Buried in a setting that defaulted to the change that FB wanted. If you were to sneak in a change to a contract in the same way, I think a lot of courts would throw it out, or maybe even consider it fraudulent. > isn't that the definition of tyranny? Seems more like just the definition of government. The German government seems like both the underdog and the less capricious actor in this case.
- icebraining 10y ago
  Isn't this the definition of tyranny and why we oppose things such as the war on drugs? In my experience, many people don't argue against the war on drugs due to being against any imposition on consensual transactions but because it harms the people intended to help. They'd be fine with it otherwise. Personally, I have some sympathy for your view, but I'm of the opinion that contracts require meeting of the minds, and that it's plainly obvious that many, possibly most users have no real idea of what they're trading away, evidenced by the fact that the T&C conditions of these services are unreadable and not even expected to be read.
0xmohit 10y ago
Quoting from the link: Facebook said on Tuesday, after the order had been issued, that it had complied with Europe’s privacy rules and that it was willing to work with the German regulator to address its concerns. Two Indian students challenged Facebook on WhatsApp privacy policy changes [0]. The following is what WhatsApp counsel told [1]: Using the messaging service is a voluntary decision, we have not forced anybody to use it. Users have an option of opting out of it. Disclaimer: I don't have an account on either Facebook or WhatsApp. [0] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-20/facebook-faces-indian-court-challenge-on-whatsapp-privacy-policy http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-20/facebook-f... [1] http://mashable.com/2016/09/23/india-delhi-high-court-whatsapp-facebook/ http://mashable.com/2016/09/23/india-delhi-high-court-whatsa...
- jagermo 10y ago
  How are the privacy laws in India? Couldn't the students sue? to be honest, if the pressure was just from two individuals, I'd also say something like Facebook.
- logn 10y ago
  > Using the messaging service is a voluntary decision Once a critical mass uses a messaging service, it's not a completely voluntary decision, especially when there is no open standard with interoperable competing apps.
  - corndoge 10y ago
    This is false. Market dominance does not transform a proprietary product into a basic utility. What I mean is that simply because a proprietary product has a large mass of users does not mean the users have the right to demand that it be regulated like a public utility.
    - omouse 10y ago
      It can in some cases and in some cases they should be turned into infrastructure. We've done the same with power plants and highways. And actually yes they do have that right! A corporation is given the privilege to exist by the state, that privilege can also be taken away.
arviewer 10y ago
This is why I like the Germans so much. They just do this stuff.
FabHK 10y ago
Can everyone just please install Wire [1]: * free, * end-to-end encrypted * text and voice chat * with pictures and group chat and what have you, * using the Signal/OpenWhisper protocol, * with desktop and web clients, * open source (GPLv3, and on github [2]), * signup with phone number or email, * based in Switzerland, * what else can you ask for? Signal itself of course is pretty good, secure (recommended by Ed Snowden, famously), but not quite as fully featured it seems to me. [1] https://wire.com https://wire.com [2] https://github.com/wireapp https://github.com/wireapp EDIT: added license, web client
- mtgx 10y ago
  Tried to use Wire recently. On both the "native" app and the web one, it takes from 2-5 seconds for my message to appear in the window. I wanted to use it instead of Hangouts, but I can't if it's 3x slower. They need to do something about it, and they need to do it soon. This has happened since they launched the desktop client, but at first I thought I'd just give them sometime to fix the initial bugs. But it's still as slow as ever. My guess is their HTML5 app code sucks, so if I were them I'd scrap it and start over with a higher-performance alternative.
  - Siimteller 10y ago
    Give it another try in a day or two (we're close to a small performance release). Browser based encryption has performance issues but at least now we're showing the sent message immediately (in grey while it's sending, in black when sent).
- anotheryou 10y ago
  I have free choice on which messenger to use, but no choice at all on which messenger to reach my friends. And sadly I know I'd loose all the less close long distance friends if I refused to talk about private things on facebook all-together. It was hard enough to make some people switch to telegram, but at least some of my frequent contacts arrived there. On signal I've been lonely ever since, no Idea how to make people switch again. For PGP I lost my passphrase because no one ever supported it and OTR doesn't work with my phone and nobody uses it...
bikamonki 10y ago
You can go get an off-contract sim card, use it on a clean Android, create a fake gmail account in order to download and install Whatsapp. Now you make connections (you add family and friends to your contacts) and start communicating. By now both FB and Google know who you are simply b/c other people in your network, not concerned with privacy, have you saved on their contacts list, pressumably under your first and last name. Using analytics data that you inadvertedly share through your usage habits, both companies build a detailed online persona that will never be forgotten. B/c we are creatures of habit and social bonds, it is quite easy to determine who you are and what you do, by indirect information like your locations (gps), connections (contacts), online presence (IPs), browsing habits, etc. THERE IS NO ESCAPE. Unless you do what they themselves say you should do if you do not agree with the terms: don't use their services.
- technofiend 10y ago
  >THERE IS NO ESCAPE. Unless you do what they themselves say you should do if you do not agree with the terms: don't use their services. Or as so many others have called out in the thread - you get legislative relief.
  - smokeyj 10y ago
    But if you have a database of the entire population and can correlate relationships in data - what exactly does this legislation look like? "Ok Zuck, here's all my data. But don't run a `SELECT *` because that would violate my privacy". The solution here is obviously open-source and protocol based mediums. Proprietary social networks exist to extract data and sell ads. But let's ignore that and give politicians more power to regulate internet services as a whole. I'm sure the German government would love that.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
      > But if you have a database of the entire population and can correlate relationships in data - what exactly does this legislation look like? "Ok Zuck, here's all my data. But don't run a `SELECT *` because that would violate my privacy". Yes, there are laws restricting how and when data can be processed. That someone has the ability to do something bad does not mean they cannot be restricted from doing it by the law.
brogrammernot 10y ago
This could send shockwaves throughout the entire web. If the premise of the complaint is that users connecting with a facebook account didn't explicitly give permission to use the data associated with it then I imagine a swooping change will have to happen with all services that use Facebook, google sign on as they'll have to explicitly gain user's consent to use the exact information they're mining. You might go, oh well they already do, I doubt it honestly and they likely rely on implicit consent but I can see this having major shockwaves
micro_softy 10y ago
"... we have not forced anybody to use it." What kind of an argument is that? Send everybody a binding agreement that allows the company to collect data and use it for commerical purposes. Let the users decide whether to sign it. Surely, if the above is a solid argument, then most everyone would sign it. "Yes, we held out a carrot, but we did not force any rabbits to take it."
makecheck 10y ago
It’s unfortunately a good example of how easy it is for products to change: in our current system, any nice thing is just one buyout away from becoming something entirely different. It’s a bit like when a restaurant starts out good or bad, and changes under new management: it’s “the same” restaurant and yet it’s really not the same anymore, and consumers may or may not have gotten the memo. And it almost doesn’t matter if it goes through 3 managers, from good to bad and back to good, as the brand has already been tarnished and the damage is done. I believe strongly that the hard work of hundreds of people shouldn’t be easy to screw up just because the wrong people bought you out, and yet this happens frequently: good projects are killed, and excellent work may end up going nowhere. This is why open-source projects have so much value: they are very difficult to screw up because there is always the option to fork it from a good spot and keep all the good work alive.
davidf18 10y ago
There is such a thing as being a good citizen on the net and part of that should be that these privacy violating features be "opt in" so that people can use them if they want to. Maybe NY State where I live will pass some privacy laws.
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  HA! Hahahaha funny, NY basically functions as the precursor to Federal policies that have dubious privacy and civil rights merits
thr0waway1239 10y ago
Remember "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas?". I look forward to more countries declaring themselves high-privacy zones to attract tourists. Except for the privacy intrusion from all the other tourists, I suppose :-)
nojvek 10y ago
While Germany is protecting their citizens from facebook's shady privacy policies, The US leaders argue about who has more stamina. I'm very happy paying 1$ a year for privacy and security. Whatsapp just re-iterated that they will say anything to fool its users and break their promise. Facebook should definitely get a fine in billions and should be made to apologize publicly for breaching privacy.
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  If you're paying $1 a year you don't have privacy: you just gave your banking details to the provider. Why do you think this is better than optional linking to a Facebook profile that may or may not even use your real name, and almost certainly does not have your street address on it?
  - AlexandrB 10y ago
    Banking details are far from then most damaging thing you can reveal. Things like credit card fraud are usually insured by your bank and WhatsApp is not getting access to peer into your account balance when you pay for something. Facebook's data mining allows it to form a profile of your preferences, which political groups you belong to, where you spend most of your time, and who you associate with. This is all potentially damaging information - especially under the right circumstances like the political tumult happening in Turkey.
jsudhams 10y ago
In India related http://mashable.com/2016/09/23/india-delhi-high-court-whatsapp-facebook/#S_DrdkKv.kqo http://mashable.com/2016/09/23/india-delhi-high-court-whatsa...
bogomipz 10y ago
If I were German I would feel pretty good that my government was willing to stand up for my privacy. In an era when both civil liberties and expectations of reasonable privacy seem to be falling by the wayside, even in countries that purport to espouse such principles I think this is pretty awesome.
shkr 10y ago
Yesterday, I opened whatsapp on my phone. During the last weeks I have been clicking on the `Not Now` option when whatsapp gave me the new terms and conditions. Yesterday, the not now option did not exist. This is not good.
- aykutcan 10y ago
  What is not good ? What is the point ?
  - ffggvv 10y ago
    I think he means that he can't say "no" to the new terms anymore. But you are right. But you're right, if the parent doesn't like whatsapp it should just uninstall it.
achou 10y ago
A former colleague of mine who was a distinguished academic and successful tech executive grew up in East Germany. After the Berlin wall fell, he was able to enter the building where they kept the dossiers. He found his own file and was astounded by the information they had on him. His friends, his work, his habits. Photos of himself going about his business. His social circles. His friends were equally shocked by the collection of the most trivial details. They weren't fomenting revolution or doing anything remotely disruptive. They thought nobody would pay much attention to a bunch of harmless random students. They were wrong. Memories like this still have force in Europe. I have to believe that their history makes many Europeans queasy about the collection of mass information. It is also easy to see how these laws could be exploited by large companies in Europe for their own commercial interest. Still, these laws have a moral force and US companies are stupid to try to circumvent, belittle, or ignore them. The desire for privacy has deep roots; it is not a nuisance to be swatted away on the path towards maximal profits.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  WhatsApp users were estimated to have a seven year useful life at the time of their sale. Facebook will want a profit on them, but if the estimate was accurate, there are only five years left until they are used up. Facebook may become increasingly desperate to transfer any remaining users into their primary product.
  - blowski 10y ago
    Estimated by whom?
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      Sorry, I must have edited that out when I put it to screen. The estimate appeared in Facebook's 2014 10-K filing.
- Gruselbauer 10y ago
  Absolutely true for older generations, but among those under, say, forty years of age, the 'I don't have anything to hide' fallacy is alive and well just as anywhere else. I'm German and it's been a huge ordeal to get my closest friends to migrate to Telegram at least. Signal was debated, but the lack of a good desktop client killed it. XMPP and IRC and all, not with these guys. Germany has some vocal proponents of privacy ideals, like the Chaos Computer Club, but we also have politicians who pull the very same crap as anywhere else.
AndrewKemendo 10y ago
This is an important discussion, but nobody seems to be asking the question - what is the end goal here for either side? Lets take the extremes as a beginning.. 1. Lets assume every action a person takes is logged. That means every keystroke, cough, heartbeat, meal, path taken etc... for everyone on the planet is tracked somewhere in some system. 2. On the flip side lets say that nothing is logged and we stop using systems that track our behavior altogether. - What are the costs and benefits to either extreme and where would the people of the future prefer to lie on that extreme? Is there a realistic middle ground? If the question is about informed consent then I am afraid it's a losing battle. Consumers do not understand even the basic externalities of different behaviors - and even if you printed them on the label it would mostly be noise. So to expect that people will understand all possible negative externalities with sharing data is a bridge too far. I personally think that more accurate lifestyle data, provided by users to Machine systems, with the purpose of affecting behaviors, based on stated and revealed preferences of the users would be the best long term outcome. Offloading decision making to a machine is the best decision we will ever make as a species - and that requires a lot of training data and other data to optimize. Otherwise we might as well just go back to everyone being a farmer.

658 points by mh-cx 10y ago

How does this work, if I travel to Germany and use WhatsApp is Facebook compelled to delete all the shared data they have on me?

kuschku 10y ago
Likely they'll do it based on the phone number prefix +49
- nowlnowl 10y ago
  I sense a new market. German number-as-a-Service...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Grangar 10y ago
    This will be on Show HN in 2 weeks, calling it now.
    - webjunkie 10y ago
      Get one on Twilio, set it up so you get the verification code, finished. Right?
teamhappy 10y ago
I guess that's Facebook's problem now. WhatsApp uses phone numbers as logins though, doesn't it? Shouldn't be too hard to map providers to different countries.
BostX 10y ago
I heared facebook installs a big "Delete my data" button made of granit on a main square in every german city. You have to double click it. With your head.
bogomipz 10y ago
I would think it would be either by German carriers or else country code of the phone.

Tomte 10y ago

Hamburg's data commissioner is influential because he is very active and outspoken (the previous one was even more so), but that also means that he's a bit fast and loose. His opinions and rulings are not always held up by the courts, and the other states' data commissioners (there are fifteen more, plus a federal one) quite often don't agree with him.

veddox 10y ago
It just takes one loud voice to start a debate.
kuschku 10y ago
Although the data commissioner of Schleswig-Holstein almost always backs Hamburg’s commissioner.

mkagenius 10y ago

There is one funny one: http://www.ndtv.com/blog/why-i-took-whatsapp-to-court-by-a-19-year-old-student-1466535 http://www.ndtv.com/blog/why-i-took-whatsapp-to-court-by-a-1...

thecatspaw 10y ago
"please turn off your adblocker" yeah, no thanks. Do you have another link?
- drusepth 10y ago
  In case OP doesn't, here's the article anyway: http://imgur.com/a/8MogG http://imgur.com/a/8MogG The ads could have been much worse.
  - hackernews2000 10y ago
    If you use Firefox, next time press SHIFT + F2, then type in "screenshot --fullpage" and press enter.
    - drusepth 10y ago
      That's an awesome feature, thanks for the tip. Will definitely keep it in mind when I'm on a machine with FF installed!
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  Just load it with javascript disabled. You may need to find a sane browser for that. Opera 12 does that job fine for me.
  - strugglefun 10y ago
    or http://textise.net http://textise.net . Edit: Example Result: https://www.textise.net/showText.aspx?strURL=http%253A//www.ndtv.com/blog/why-i-took-whatsapp-to-court-by-a-19-year-old-student-1466535 https://www.textise.net/showText.aspx?strURL=http%253A//www....

smoyer 10y ago

Now things are going to get interesting! I completely understand the desire for privacy but I think it's unrealistic to expect that Facebook won't consolidate its data by user across all their applications. Facebook (and Google, etc.) are now in the same business as the credit reporting agencies ... You are their only product. My hope is that the increasing outrage will drive users to one of the secure messaging applications. Disclaimer: I have neither a Facebook nor a WhatsApp account.

danieldk 10y ago
Now things are going to get interesting! I completely understand the desire for privacy but I thinkmit's unrealistic to expect that Facebook won't consolidate its data by user across all their applications. Facebook (and Google, etc.) are now in the same business as the credit reporting agencies ... You are their only product. The difference in this particular case is that Whatsapp made an explicit promise that they would not start sharing their data. Respect for your privacy is coded into our DNA, and we built WhatsApp around the goal of knowing as little about you as possible: You don't have to give us your name and we don't ask for your email address. We don’t know your birthday. We don’t know your home address. We don’t know where you work. We don’t know your likes, what you search for on the internet or collect your GPS location. None of that data has ever been collected and stored by WhatsApp, and we really have no plans to change that. If partnering with Facebook meant that we had to change our values, we wouldn’t have done it. Instead, we are forming a partnership that would allow us to continue operating independently and autonomously. Our fundamental values and beliefs will not change. Our principles will not change. Everything that has made WhatsApp the leader in personal messaging will still be in place. Speculation to the contrary isn’t just baseless and unfounded, it’s irresponsible. It has the effect of scaring people into thinking we’re suddenly collecting all kinds of new data. That’s just not true, and it’s important to us that you know that. Make no mistake: our future partnership with Facebook will not compromise the vision that brought us to this point. Our focus remains on delivering the promise of WhatsApp far and wide, so that people around the world have the freedom to speak their mind without fear. https://blog.whatsapp.com/529/Setting-the-record-straight https://blog.whatsapp.com/529/Setting-the-record-straight

icantdrive55 10y ago

I would like to see a federal Staute inacted regarding the collection of user data in the US. Enacted quickly! Something on the lines of don't collect any data, besides name, password, email address. This information can never be sold. I have weird feeling, in the near future, we will find that information/data has been abused. No just abused by marketing/big data, etc.. And I'm not even arguing about the obvious--personal privacy. Although personal privacy should be the number one reason for this hypothetical statute. I have a feeling, it will be the next big financial insider trading scandal. It will involve people we talk about here-- Google/Bing/FB insiders(the ones who can see individual IP's, and their data.), took all that information, and traded stock upon it. I have a hard time believing every email that Warren Buffet/George Sorrows/every sussessful trader makes isn't looked at by someone. And it's not just email; it collating search histories, in order to get a "feeling" of where the money to is to be made. They are then using that info. to invest in stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.. And yes, they will claim we don't care about getting insider info. on investments--we make a killing selling the data to marketers. Why would we do such a thing? Because you can. I would have a hard time not looking at that information, and I don't have a penny to gamble. I think it will be a huge story. (Edit to a legitimate question about the poor websites that depend on advertising.) Yes--I didn't bring up advertising. They could advertise like the old days, like newspapers did. They just couldn't target market their advertising--like they presently do at nausium. I still think they would make their nut. They would still be winners! And yes--I would pay for the right service, if they couldn't manage to compete by being hobbled with not targeted advertising. I paid for many websites before Google made advertising a science. My post has nothing to do with advertising. I get advertising. Just leave my detailed, personal info. out of it.)

chii 10y ago
> Something on the lines of don't collect any data, besides name, password, email address. This information can never be sold. Would you then pay for the services in full that you now could use for free?
- bonoboTP 10y ago
  Maybe yes, maybe not. So what? It should still be forbidden. If it turns out that not enough people want to pay for it, then tough luck for the company, they should design something that people will pay for. For example it is forbidden to take organs from people as payment. We could forbid taking certain private data from masses of people as payment.

kbart 10y ago

“It has to be their decision, whether they want to connect their account with Facebook,” Johannes Caspar, the Hamburg data protection commissioner, said in a statement. “Therefore, Facebook has to ask for their permission in advance. This has not happened.” That's a fair point. I don't use WhatsApp, so did it asked to accept new privacy policy, terms & conditions or smth? Anyway, I'm happy to see that institutions in Europe take a stance against big corps to protect its users lately.

rmc 10y ago
I don't think dense legalise in a click through can count as "consent"
- danarmak 10y ago
  This is a real problem. What's the alternative? The TOS does need to express the desired purpose and to hold up in court if required. Some licenses are much simpler than others, but some are necessarily complex. The GPL is much shorter than most click-through TOSs, but an average user still isn't going to read it.
  - wsy 10y ago
    German law requires to use opt-in, i.e. the default setting of agreements to transfer data to other parties must be 'no' (or the checkbox must be empty). That way, it is very easy to make sure there is explicit consent to transfer of data, and the service provider can't hide it in the TOS. Of course, the service provider is also free to limit or close its services to users that do not consent. That is actually what the German data protection watchdog refers to: the WhatsApp setting that controls if the data is transmitted is by default enabled (opt-out), but should be disabled (opt-in).
    - danarmak 10y ago
      I don't think this is very useful in most cases. Suppose a service requires data transmission to operate, either intrinsically, or it just chooses to require it. It displays a checkbox, unchecked by default, and unless the user checks it, the service isn't going to work; checking the checkbox is functionally equivalent to the "I Agree" TOS button. I expect users will check the checkbox without reading any explanations, just as today they click "I Agree" without reading anything. And if this is a legal requirement, then service providers are greatly incentivized to require data transmission as a condition of using the service. If it's optional, then very few users will go into settings and enable it. If it's mandatory, then all users are going to agree, in order to use the service.

hiisukun 10y ago

Regardless of how this ends up working or being decided, I'm very happy to see such discussion occurring. The large scale collection of data on users has benefits both nominally 'good' and 'evil' - from app UX to advertising profits. But equally interesting are the potential drawbacks involving privacy concerns, and lack of user awareness. It is this last point that I find best remedied by articles like this appearing in widely available media publications. When a discussion is on HN I might learn a lot and reflect upon my choices. When the nytimes and German privacy commissioner start a conversation, I consider that even more valuable. Hopefully a balanced outcome will occur, but I don't see that as important as the inevitable education that comes with such public debate.

s3r3nity 10y ago
This is probably nitpicky, but I'm not sure I buy this idea that "advertising profits" are "evil" - last I checked I happily use a Facebook account and all its features, built by extremely hard-working and intelligent engineers, without paying a dime. Not to mention the fact that I don't want to pay, and some people just can't.
- shopkins 10y ago
  It's not the profits, but the practices that generate those profits, which people consider evil.

Kenji 10y ago

I don't understand why the state has to become involved. Let the free market work and people decide for themselves. I stopped using WhatsApp the moment I read that facebook bought it.

yulaow 10y ago
Privacy is strongly regulated in EU, there was a strong push for it from both our legislators and normal citizens. We asked the states to be involved and not let the "free market" decide by itself. In my state one of the most important and independent role in government is the "Privacy Regulator" which has the power to check, verify and impose strong regulations on how you manage others data, and is very active.
- rglullis 10y ago
  I'm sad to inform you, this is a horrible trap you and many Europeans fall into. All of this legislation comes from lobby groups representing the big telcos, who are just desperately looking for ways to keep the OTT's away. Just a couple of weeks ago a draft bill was published indicating that OTT's must be able to comply with the same regulations as a telco, which means, among things like "ability to call emergency services", that end-to-end encryption would NOT be allowed, because end-to-end encryption kills the capacity for "lawful interception". [1] [1]: FT article, looks like it paywalled, link to google cache: "Brussels to tighten grip on web services in telecoms shake-up" https://goo.gl/MFYaIx https://goo.gl/MFYaIx
  - kaybe 10y ago
    So would you say the situation is worse than elsewhere? Especially considering we are not US citizens and thus free game under the US constitution.
    - rglullis 10y ago
      All that I can say is that if we actually had free markets, one's citizenship wouldn't matter at all. For better or for worse, it would be up to individuals to inform ourselves and seek privacy, security and financial profits as we see fit.

patrickaljord 10y ago

Facebook asked WhatsApp users to give consent before collecting data, which some did. Why should the government intervine between consenting adults agreeing on a contract willfully? Isn't this the definition of tyranny and why we oppose things such as the war on drugs?

Grangar 10y ago
These terms and conditions are untransparent garbage. It's estimated that if a person was to read everything they agree too, they'd be busy 24/7.
- necessity 10y ago
  I remember there was a website that supplied tl;drs of EULAs from popular websites. Anyone knows it?
  - heinrich5991 10y ago
    Googling "tldr eula" gives me https://tosdr.org/ https://tosdr.org/.
pille 10y ago
> intervine between consenting adults Buried in a setting that defaulted to the change that FB wanted. If you were to sneak in a change to a contract in the same way, I think a lot of courts would throw it out, or maybe even consider it fraudulent. > isn't that the definition of tyranny? Seems more like just the definition of government. The German government seems like both the underdog and the less capricious actor in this case.
icebraining 10y ago
Isn't this the definition of tyranny and why we oppose things such as the war on drugs? In my experience, many people don't argue against the war on drugs due to being against any imposition on consensual transactions but because it harms the people intended to help. They'd be fine with it otherwise. Personally, I have some sympathy for your view, but I'm of the opinion that contracts require meeting of the minds, and that it's plainly obvious that many, possibly most users have no real idea of what they're trading away, evidenced by the fact that the T&C conditions of these services are unreadable and not even expected to be read.

0xmohit 10y ago

Quoting from the link: Facebook said on Tuesday, after the order had been issued, that it had complied with Europe’s privacy rules and that it was willing to work with the German regulator to address its concerns. Two Indian students challenged Facebook on WhatsApp privacy policy changes [0]. The following is what WhatsApp counsel told [1]: Using the messaging service is a voluntary decision, we have not forced anybody to use it. Users have an option of opting out of it. Disclaimer: I don't have an account on either Facebook or WhatsApp. [0] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-20/facebook-faces-indian-court-challenge-on-whatsapp-privacy-policy http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-20/facebook-f... [1] http://mashable.com/2016/09/23/india-delhi-high-court-whatsapp-facebook/ http://mashable.com/2016/09/23/india-delhi-high-court-whatsa...

jagermo 10y ago
How are the privacy laws in India? Couldn't the students sue? to be honest, if the pressure was just from two individuals, I'd also say something like Facebook.
logn 10y ago
> Using the messaging service is a voluntary decision Once a critical mass uses a messaging service, it's not a completely voluntary decision, especially when there is no open standard with interoperable competing apps.
- corndoge 10y ago
  This is false. Market dominance does not transform a proprietary product into a basic utility. What I mean is that simply because a proprietary product has a large mass of users does not mean the users have the right to demand that it be regulated like a public utility.
  - omouse 10y ago
    It can in some cases and in some cases they should be turned into infrastructure. We've done the same with power plants and highways. And actually yes they do have that right! A corporation is given the privilege to exist by the state, that privilege can also be taken away.

arviewer 10y ago

This is why I like the Germans so much. They just do this stuff.

FabHK 10y ago

Can everyone just please install Wire [1]: * free, * end-to-end encrypted * text and voice chat * with pictures and group chat and what have you, * using the Signal/OpenWhisper protocol, * with desktop and web clients, * open source (GPLv3, and on github [2]), * signup with phone number or email, * based in Switzerland, * what else can you ask for? Signal itself of course is pretty good, secure (recommended by Ed Snowden, famously), but not quite as fully featured it seems to me. [1] https://wire.com https://wire.com [2] https://github.com/wireapp https://github.com/wireapp EDIT: added license, web client

mtgx 10y ago
Tried to use Wire recently. On both the "native" app and the web one, it takes from 2-5 seconds for my message to appear in the window. I wanted to use it instead of Hangouts, but I can't if it's 3x slower. They need to do something about it, and they need to do it soon. This has happened since they launched the desktop client, but at first I thought I'd just give them sometime to fix the initial bugs. But it's still as slow as ever. My guess is their HTML5 app code sucks, so if I were them I'd scrap it and start over with a higher-performance alternative.
- Siimteller 10y ago
  Give it another try in a day or two (we're close to a small performance release). Browser based encryption has performance issues but at least now we're showing the sent message immediately (in grey while it's sending, in black when sent).
anotheryou 10y ago
I have free choice on which messenger to use, but no choice at all on which messenger to reach my friends. And sadly I know I'd loose all the less close long distance friends if I refused to talk about private things on facebook all-together. It was hard enough to make some people switch to telegram, but at least some of my frequent contacts arrived there. On signal I've been lonely ever since, no Idea how to make people switch again. For PGP I lost my passphrase because no one ever supported it and OTR doesn't work with my phone and nobody uses it...

bikamonki 10y ago

You can go get an off-contract sim card, use it on a clean Android, create a fake gmail account in order to download and install Whatsapp. Now you make connections (you add family and friends to your contacts) and start communicating. By now both FB and Google know who you are simply b/c other people in your network, not concerned with privacy, have you saved on their contacts list, pressumably under your first and last name. Using analytics data that you inadvertedly share through your usage habits, both companies build a detailed online persona that will never be forgotten. B/c we are creatures of habit and social bonds, it is quite easy to determine who you are and what you do, by indirect information like your locations (gps), connections (contacts), online presence (IPs), browsing habits, etc. THERE IS NO ESCAPE. Unless you do what they themselves say you should do if you do not agree with the terms: don't use their services.

technofiend 10y ago
>THERE IS NO ESCAPE. Unless you do what they themselves say you should do if you do not agree with the terms: don't use their services. Or as so many others have called out in the thread - you get legislative relief.
- smokeyj 10y ago
  But if you have a database of the entire population and can correlate relationships in data - what exactly does this legislation look like? "Ok Zuck, here's all my data. But don't run a `SELECT *` because that would violate my privacy". The solution here is obviously open-source and protocol based mediums. Proprietary social networks exist to extract data and sell ads. But let's ignore that and give politicians more power to regulate internet services as a whole. I'm sure the German government would love that.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
    > But if you have a database of the entire population and can correlate relationships in data - what exactly does this legislation look like? "Ok Zuck, here's all my data. But don't run a `SELECT *` because that would violate my privacy". Yes, there are laws restricting how and when data can be processed. That someone has the ability to do something bad does not mean they cannot be restricted from doing it by the law.

brogrammernot 10y ago

This could send shockwaves throughout the entire web. If the premise of the complaint is that users connecting with a facebook account didn't explicitly give permission to use the data associated with it then I imagine a swooping change will have to happen with all services that use Facebook, google sign on as they'll have to explicitly gain user's consent to use the exact information they're mining. You might go, oh well they already do, I doubt it honestly and they likely rely on implicit consent but I can see this having major shockwaves

micro_softy 10y ago

"... we have not forced anybody to use it." What kind of an argument is that? Send everybody a binding agreement that allows the company to collect data and use it for commerical purposes. Let the users decide whether to sign it. Surely, if the above is a solid argument, then most everyone would sign it. "Yes, we held out a carrot, but we did not force any rabbits to take it."

makecheck 10y ago

It’s unfortunately a good example of how easy it is for products to change: in our current system, any nice thing is just one buyout away from becoming something entirely different. It’s a bit like when a restaurant starts out good or bad, and changes under new management: it’s “the same” restaurant and yet it’s really not the same anymore, and consumers may or may not have gotten the memo. And it almost doesn’t matter if it goes through 3 managers, from good to bad and back to good, as the brand has already been tarnished and the damage is done. I believe strongly that the hard work of hundreds of people shouldn’t be easy to screw up just because the wrong people bought you out, and yet this happens frequently: good projects are killed, and excellent work may end up going nowhere. This is why open-source projects have so much value: they are very difficult to screw up because there is always the option to fork it from a good spot and keep all the good work alive.

davidf18 10y ago

There is such a thing as being a good citizen on the net and part of that should be that these privacy violating features be "opt in" so that people can use them if they want to. Maybe NY State where I live will pass some privacy laws.

cloudjacker 10y ago
HA! Hahahaha funny, NY basically functions as the precursor to Federal policies that have dubious privacy and civil rights merits

thr0waway1239 10y ago

Remember "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas?". I look forward to more countries declaring themselves high-privacy zones to attract tourists. Except for the privacy intrusion from all the other tourists, I suppose :-)

nojvek 10y ago

While Germany is protecting their citizens from facebook's shady privacy policies, The US leaders argue about who has more stamina. I'm very happy paying 1$ a year for privacy and security. Whatsapp just re-iterated that they will say anything to fool its users and break their promise. Facebook should definitely get a fine in billions and should be made to apologize publicly for breaching privacy.

zigzigzag 10y ago
If you're paying $1 a year you don't have privacy: you just gave your banking details to the provider. Why do you think this is better than optional linking to a Facebook profile that may or may not even use your real name, and almost certainly does not have your street address on it?
- AlexandrB 10y ago
  Banking details are far from then most damaging thing you can reveal. Things like credit card fraud are usually insured by your bank and WhatsApp is not getting access to peer into your account balance when you pay for something. Facebook's data mining allows it to form a profile of your preferences, which political groups you belong to, where you spend most of your time, and who you associate with. This is all potentially damaging information - especially under the right circumstances like the political tumult happening in Turkey.

jsudhams 10y ago

In India related http://mashable.com/2016/09/23/india-delhi-high-court-whatsapp-facebook/#S_DrdkKv.kqo http://mashable.com/2016/09/23/india-delhi-high-court-whatsa...

bogomipz 10y ago

If I were German I would feel pretty good that my government was willing to stand up for my privacy. In an era when both civil liberties and expectations of reasonable privacy seem to be falling by the wayside, even in countries that purport to espouse such principles I think this is pretty awesome.

shkr 10y ago

Yesterday, I opened whatsapp on my phone. During the last weeks I have been clicking on the `Not Now` option when whatsapp gave me the new terms and conditions. Yesterday, the not now option did not exist. This is not good.

aykutcan 10y ago
What is not good ? What is the point ?
- ffggvv 10y ago
  I think he means that he can't say "no" to the new terms anymore. But you are right. But you're right, if the parent doesn't like whatsapp it should just uninstall it.

achou 10y ago

A former colleague of mine who was a distinguished academic and successful tech executive grew up in East Germany. After the Berlin wall fell, he was able to enter the building where they kept the dossiers. He found his own file and was astounded by the information they had on him. His friends, his work, his habits. Photos of himself going about his business. His social circles. His friends were equally shocked by the collection of the most trivial details. They weren't fomenting revolution or doing anything remotely disruptive. They thought nobody would pay much attention to a bunch of harmless random students. They were wrong. Memories like this still have force in Europe. I have to believe that their history makes many Europeans queasy about the collection of mass information. It is also easy to see how these laws could be exploited by large companies in Europe for their own commercial interest. Still, these laws have a moral force and US companies are stupid to try to circumvent, belittle, or ignore them. The desire for privacy has deep roots; it is not a nuisance to be swatted away on the path towards maximal profits.

jsprogrammer 10y ago
WhatsApp users were estimated to have a seven year useful life at the time of their sale. Facebook will want a profit on them, but if the estimate was accurate, there are only five years left until they are used up. Facebook may become increasingly desperate to transfer any remaining users into their primary product.
- blowski 10y ago
  Estimated by whom?
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    Sorry, I must have edited that out when I put it to screen. The estimate appeared in Facebook's 2014 10-K filing.
Gruselbauer 10y ago
Absolutely true for older generations, but among those under, say, forty years of age, the 'I don't have anything to hide' fallacy is alive and well just as anywhere else. I'm German and it's been a huge ordeal to get my closest friends to migrate to Telegram at least. Signal was debated, but the lack of a good desktop client killed it. XMPP and IRC and all, not with these guys. Germany has some vocal proponents of privacy ideals, like the Chaos Computer Club, but we also have politicians who pull the very same crap as anywhere else.

AndrewKemendo 10y ago

This is an important discussion, but nobody seems to be asking the question - what is the end goal here for either side? Lets take the extremes as a beginning.. 1. Lets assume every action a person takes is logged. That means every keystroke, cough, heartbeat, meal, path taken etc... for everyone on the planet is tracked somewhere in some system. 2. On the flip side lets say that nothing is logged and we stop using systems that track our behavior altogether. - What are the costs and benefits to either extreme and where would the people of the future prefer to lie on that extreme? Is there a realistic middle ground? If the question is about informed consent then I am afraid it's a losing battle. Consumers do not understand even the basic externalities of different behaviors - and even if you printed them on the label it would mostly be noise. So to expect that people will understand all possible negative externalities with sharing data is a bridge too far. I personally think that more accurate lifestyle data, provided by users to Machine systems, with the purpose of affecting behaviors, based on stated and revealed preferences of the users would be the best long term outcome. Offloading decision making to a machine is the best decision we will ever make as a species - and that requires a lot of training data and other data to optimize. Otherwise we might as well just go back to everyone being a farmer.