9 ms·

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

by 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
- ominous 10y ago
  Where does it say that Facebook will respect that blog post?
  - dilemma 10y ago
    That blog post is written and published by Facebook on their own website.
  - DavidWanjiru 10y ago
    We could ask this question recursively ad infinitum. Because their intention to respect wherever it says they'll respect the blog post can be questioned too.
    - ominous 10y ago
      qed.
- smoyer 10y ago
  I read that blog post when the acquisition was announced ... And laughed! While it feels like the (then) WhatsApp CEO was sincere, did anyone really believe that Zuckerberg would be a hands-off owner? Or that his public-only data content ideas wouldn't become dominant? I'll agree that I think this move contradicts his blog post but I also don't think the purchased entity gets to set the terms after agreeing to be bought ... That would be an interesting contract to read.
  - saiya-jin 10y ago
    you wouldn't pay 2 billion for messaging app with few hundred millions of users that is without ads and doesn't make any money to be philanthropic about it, would you (or anybody else)
    - tsunamifury 10y ago
      22 billion
teekert 10y ago
Whatsapp gained massive users with their "no commercials ever" claim. They were a small independent company. And people arguably got invested in the network as a result. Now they reverse on that but the public feels locked in. I myself think... just switch to Signal or Telegram, but the amount of WA users is simply massive here in the EU. Everybody uses it.
- kriro 10y ago
  Sometimes I wonder if the strategy of announcing "due to the anti commercial data privacy demands in Germany we are forced to suspend all German WA accounts for the next couple of days" is ever discussed at Facebook. I'd be interested to see the political pressure it would create. I think the network is strong enough that people won't switch to other apps instantly and there would be a pretty big "just gimme back my WA" outcry which politicians would probably need to respond to. Obviously the Datenschutzbeauftragte are theoretically independent but I'm sure they'd feel the heat. At least I'd be interested in seeing this play out if a law is being discussed. It won't ever happen but I have a feeling people would want WA enough that it could theoretically be used as a strategy.
  - retox 10y ago
    My understanding is that the German people generally are very wary of data being moved around and collected 'unnecessarily'. I think a ploy like this would only backfire on FB.
    - kaybe 10y ago
      I already see non-technical people switching; it would backfire massively since now the rest will overcome their inertia too.
    - veddox 10y ago
      Yes, I'd second that. While there would no doubt be some sort of outrage from the users, I don't think it would be nearly as strong as suggested. Germans in general, and especially the more educated, tend to be very protective of their data protection rights. If FB attempted something like this, it would be torn to shreds by German media.
greggman 10y ago
I'm not sure I mind FB collecting data on my when using FB directly. OTOH today I read a 10 minute article on an unrelated site about loneliness. When I got to the end of the article an in page popup appeared that said something along the lines of "Liked by 9571 people including your friend John Smith". I was extremely creeped out. What right does FB have for knowing that I read some article on an unrelated website? I immediately installed Ublock Origin, blocked facebook.com and messenger.com. My plan is to delete all my cookies and run a separate chrome profile for facebook. Not sure I'll be able to keep the discipline. Yes I know Chrome saves some of the same data but you can optionally encrypt it and Google at least claims they aren't using for ads https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/privacy/ https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/privacy/ On the other hand Google's other services like analytics are probably tracking me but so far they haven't been as creepy.
- krrrh 10y ago
  On the Mac there is an old app called Fluid that makes this process easier; single website browsers appear as separate applications.
  - 72deluxe 10y ago
    Thanks for this, I would never have discovered this useful app without you. Thanks.
- yomly 10y ago
  I keep Facebook script blocked on my main chrome instance. I therefore can only check Facebook on incognito (where script block is disabled). The added friction of signing in every time to check Facebook has had the added benefit of stopping me visiting Facebook unconsciously. The amount of free time clawed back has been substantial!
- olegious 10y ago
  Clicking "like" on an article is a action that you take only if you want that like to be seen by your friends. It is an inherently public action, don't see anything wrong here.
rmc 10y ago
Facebook are quite free to consolidate all user data in the EU. And then be bound by EU laws. Which would of course limit what they can do with it. And I suspect it's commerical use, not consolidating, that Facebook are more concerned about. :)
tw04 10y ago
No, what's more interesting is previously Whatsapp users had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Facebook acquired the company without first checking with the EU or anyone else if they would oppose them removing that privacy and mining user data. Now they're caught between a rock and a hard place because they need to spy in users to justify the purchase price, but they never bothered to ask if it was OK with regulators first. Saying "users don't have to use us" after there's already a massive, massive installed base is ridiculous and Facebook knows it. If it were just as easy as switching to another messaging service they NEVER would've paid that much money for Whatsapp. It brings almost nothing unique to the table outside of it's user base/momentum.
CaptSpify 10y ago
I got down-voted for saying it last time this was brought up, but: Sharing data is what these companies do. The only way to keep your data safe is to use open-source, e2e systems. Even if you trust any company today, there's no reason you can trust said company tomorrow.
umanwizard 10y ago
Google etc. are not in the same business as the credit reporting agencies. The latter collect your data and sell it to third parties. The former collect your data, keep it a tightly-guarded secret, do not sell it to anyone, and use it to make their own product more profitable. I think the difference is important to keep in mind.

by smoyer 10y ago

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

ominous 10y ago
Where does it say that Facebook will respect that blog post?
- dilemma 10y ago
  That blog post is written and published by Facebook on their own website.
- DavidWanjiru 10y ago
  We could ask this question recursively ad infinitum. Because their intention to respect wherever it says they'll respect the blog post can be questioned too.
  - ominous 10y ago
    qed.
smoyer 10y ago
I read that blog post when the acquisition was announced ... And laughed! While it feels like the (then) WhatsApp CEO was sincere, did anyone really believe that Zuckerberg would be a hands-off owner? Or that his public-only data content ideas wouldn't become dominant? I'll agree that I think this move contradicts his blog post but I also don't think the purchased entity gets to set the terms after agreeing to be bought ... That would be an interesting contract to read.
- saiya-jin 10y ago
  you wouldn't pay 2 billion for messaging app with few hundred millions of users that is without ads and doesn't make any money to be philanthropic about it, would you (or anybody else)
  - tsunamifury 10y ago
    22 billion

teekert 10y ago

Whatsapp gained massive users with their "no commercials ever" claim. They were a small independent company. And people arguably got invested in the network as a result. Now they reverse on that but the public feels locked in. I myself think... just switch to Signal or Telegram, but the amount of WA users is simply massive here in the EU. Everybody uses it.

kriro 10y ago
Sometimes I wonder if the strategy of announcing "due to the anti commercial data privacy demands in Germany we are forced to suspend all German WA accounts for the next couple of days" is ever discussed at Facebook. I'd be interested to see the political pressure it would create. I think the network is strong enough that people won't switch to other apps instantly and there would be a pretty big "just gimme back my WA" outcry which politicians would probably need to respond to. Obviously the Datenschutzbeauftragte are theoretically independent but I'm sure they'd feel the heat. At least I'd be interested in seeing this play out if a law is being discussed. It won't ever happen but I have a feeling people would want WA enough that it could theoretically be used as a strategy.
- retox 10y ago
  My understanding is that the German people generally are very wary of data being moved around and collected 'unnecessarily'. I think a ploy like this would only backfire on FB.
  - kaybe 10y ago
    I already see non-technical people switching; it would backfire massively since now the rest will overcome their inertia too.
  - veddox 10y ago
    Yes, I'd second that. While there would no doubt be some sort of outrage from the users, I don't think it would be nearly as strong as suggested. Germans in general, and especially the more educated, tend to be very protective of their data protection rights. If FB attempted something like this, it would be torn to shreds by German media.

greggman 10y ago

I'm not sure I mind FB collecting data on my when using FB directly. OTOH today I read a 10 minute article on an unrelated site about loneliness. When I got to the end of the article an in page popup appeared that said something along the lines of "Liked by 9571 people including your friend John Smith". I was extremely creeped out. What right does FB have for knowing that I read some article on an unrelated website? I immediately installed Ublock Origin, blocked facebook.com and messenger.com. My plan is to delete all my cookies and run a separate chrome profile for facebook. Not sure I'll be able to keep the discipline. Yes I know Chrome saves some of the same data but you can optionally encrypt it and Google at least claims they aren't using for ads https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/privacy/ https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/privacy/ On the other hand Google's other services like analytics are probably tracking me but so far they haven't been as creepy.

krrrh 10y ago
On the Mac there is an old app called Fluid that makes this process easier; single website browsers appear as separate applications.
- 72deluxe 10y ago
  Thanks for this, I would never have discovered this useful app without you. Thanks.
yomly 10y ago
I keep Facebook script blocked on my main chrome instance. I therefore can only check Facebook on incognito (where script block is disabled). The added friction of signing in every time to check Facebook has had the added benefit of stopping me visiting Facebook unconsciously. The amount of free time clawed back has been substantial!
olegious 10y ago
Clicking "like" on an article is a action that you take only if you want that like to be seen by your friends. It is an inherently public action, don't see anything wrong here.

rmc 10y ago

Facebook are quite free to consolidate all user data in the EU. And then be bound by EU laws. Which would of course limit what they can do with it. And I suspect it's commerical use, not consolidating, that Facebook are more concerned about. :)

tw04 10y ago

No, what's more interesting is previously Whatsapp users had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Facebook acquired the company without first checking with the EU or anyone else if they would oppose them removing that privacy and mining user data. Now they're caught between a rock and a hard place because they need to spy in users to justify the purchase price, but they never bothered to ask if it was OK with regulators first. Saying "users don't have to use us" after there's already a massive, massive installed base is ridiculous and Facebook knows it. If it were just as easy as switching to another messaging service they NEVER would've paid that much money for Whatsapp. It brings almost nothing unique to the table outside of it's user base/momentum.

CaptSpify 10y ago

I got down-voted for saying it last time this was brought up, but: Sharing data is what these companies do. The only way to keep your data safe is to use open-source, e2e systems. Even if you trust any company today, there's no reason you can trust said company tomorrow.

umanwizard 10y ago

Google etc. are not in the same business as the credit reporting agencies. The latter collect your data and sell it to third parties. The former collect your data, keep it a tightly-guarded secret, do not sell it to anyone, and use it to make their own product more profitable. I think the difference is important to keep in mind.