20 ms·

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 connecti

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.
  - Nursie 10y ago
    Yes, just because you can do something with someone's data doesn't mean you should be able to do so. That this sort of restriction is largely missing from US data laws is one reason we see so much fuss about data centre locations and 'safe harbour' provisions.
  - technofiend 10y ago
    >But if you have a database of the entire population and can correlate relationships in data That's exactly what the legislation constrains - Zuck's select * from where user_id = 'technofiend' returns 3 rows not hundreds or thousands, or zero if I've opted out of data collection entirely. You can't simply throw your hands up and say "Well Facebook has a billion users too bad so sad if they collect data you don't like" because there are in fact plenty of laws elsewhere that restrict their activity. It's entirely possibly to tell them to keep their grubby hands of my bits and their cookies out of my browser. And yes if that means I have to pay for sites I use for free now, so be it. I can't help but think that'll drive content towards quality anyway.
    - smokeyj 10y ago
      Adopting an alternative to Zuckernet is the exact opposite. Continuing to hand your life's data to Zuck is to throw your hands up. Begging your politician for a little privacy from Zuck when strong encryption exists is to throw your hands up. People care enough about privacy to complain about it but not enough to do anything. I don't have much sympathy for them.
      - Nursie 10y ago
        Getting your democratic government to legislate protections is doing something.
      - tjl 10y ago
        One problem is that they collect "shadow" profiles of people who aren't even on the service. If someone who has your contact info is on the service, they'll start a profile of you based on that. Plus, there's many web sites that are connected to Facebook and send info back to it without you even knowing about it, just by having a Facebook share button on the page. It's very difficult to avoid having any of your data on Facebook's servers.
        TeMPOraL 10y ago
        Ah, shadow profiles again. Maybe the real problem here is that people talk about "your data". There's no "your data" in a shadow profile of you. There's data about you. I have a feeling that talking about the data as if it belonged to the person it refers to makes people reach weird conclusions. I'm having problems with articulating clear examples, but I don't like the very concept of ownership of facts - whether they're algorithms or phone<->name associations.
- bikamonki 10y ago
  Except I do not trust my government. Do you?
RodericDay 10y ago
no reason not to make it as hard as possible on them. it makes it easier for alternatives to exist in their shadow.
chinathrow 10y ago
Yes there is. Call in legislation to fix the missing things. US data protection laws are a joke. EU leads the way. We'll see more in the future, I am positive.
0xmohit 10y ago
> You can go get an off-contract sim card, use it on a clean Android The moment you connect to your WiFi, Google gets the SSID and can relate other devices using it. Possibly (?) the SSID is also known to WhatsApp. Does it really help much?
- kbaker 10y ago
  You don't even have to have wifi enabled, even when Wi-Fi is OFF it will still scan for SSIDs to use for location by default. You have to disable an obscure setting to get it to stop this behavior.
  - marco1 10y ago
    But even after the device has detected the (B)SSID, you have to enable either Wi-Fi or your mobile data connection for the device to communicate with Google's servers. Still, just as worrisome.
    - psykpsyk 10y ago
      What are you guys arguing about? That you can't escape those services grubby apetite for data was exactly GPs point...
tarancato 10y ago
Just a small heads up, WhatsApp supports installing the apk file directly without going through the Play Store. https://www.whatsapp.com/android/ https://www.whatsapp.com/android/
erikpukinskis 10y ago
You can escape into noise, but it's work. Privacy is an arms race between information and noise.
- thr0waway1239 10y ago
  That's a nice way to put it, but it may not be that inevitable. Here is a very simple idea: next time you talk to one of your friends who works at FB/Goog/etc. ask them pointedly how they can work at a place which obviously lacks any morals/ethics. Their first reaction would be to defend their actions, of course, but if a few people start doing this, my guess is that the message will start going up slowly but surely. After all, what are they going to do? Stop having friends? Those are the words that the head honchos at FB/Goog/.. etc are telling themselves about the viability of their privacy violations. At this point, no shame in turning it against them.
  - fwn 10y ago
    > After all, what are they going to do? Stop having friends? They probably opt for more tolerant friends. ..but that's just a guess.
ryandrake 10y ago
You could always, I dunno... stop using Facebook and WhatsApp and other software that you find harmful. I know, totally crazy idea. Just throwing it out there.
- kuschku 10y ago
  Network effects – at this point even some schools and newspapers are heavily using WhatsApp – make that impossible. Which means either WhatsApp is replaced by something else, or it becomes as regulated as any governmental media. EDIT: A bank already replaced most of their support channels with a WhatsApp chat. It IS a utility at that point.
  - blowski 10y ago
    Also, employers and travel authorities who view the lack of a Facebook accountant as suspicious.
- lbebber 10y ago
  That snark is uncalled for. Stopping using WhatsApp and Facebook would make communication with some groups much more difficult for me, for example, because everyone uses them.
  - cortesoft 10y ago
    Ok, so in return Facebook and WhatsApp get to learn about you. That is the cost of doing business with them. Why is that cost so different than the normal cost we pay for things (cash money)? Yes, things we value have costs. It is always a sacrifice to go without that thing, but if we want to AVOID having to go without it, we have to pay something. "I can't believe you are making me pay this cell phone bill! I have no choice but to use it, and you are CHARGING ME MONEY for it?! This is outrageous!" I mean, there are things we need even more that we have to pay for - food, shelter, etc. In order to get something from someone else, you have to give them something in return that they value. That is just how the world works.
    - 10y ago

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.
- Nursie 10y ago
  Yes, just because you can do something with someone's data doesn't mean you should be able to do so. That this sort of restriction is largely missing from US data laws is one reason we see so much fuss about data centre locations and 'safe harbour' provisions.
- technofiend 10y ago
  >But if you have a database of the entire population and can correlate relationships in data That's exactly what the legislation constrains - Zuck's select * from where user_id = 'technofiend' returns 3 rows not hundreds or thousands, or zero if I've opted out of data collection entirely. You can't simply throw your hands up and say "Well Facebook has a billion users too bad so sad if they collect data you don't like" because there are in fact plenty of laws elsewhere that restrict their activity. It's entirely possibly to tell them to keep their grubby hands of my bits and their cookies out of my browser. And yes if that means I have to pay for sites I use for free now, so be it. I can't help but think that'll drive content towards quality anyway.
  - smokeyj 10y ago
    Adopting an alternative to Zuckernet is the exact opposite. Continuing to hand your life's data to Zuck is to throw your hands up. Begging your politician for a little privacy from Zuck when strong encryption exists is to throw your hands up. People care enough about privacy to complain about it but not enough to do anything. I don't have much sympathy for them.
    - Nursie 10y ago
      Getting your democratic government to legislate protections is doing something.
    - tjl 10y ago
      One problem is that they collect "shadow" profiles of people who aren't even on the service. If someone who has your contact info is on the service, they'll start a profile of you based on that. Plus, there's many web sites that are connected to Facebook and send info back to it without you even knowing about it, just by having a Facebook share button on the page. It's very difficult to avoid having any of your data on Facebook's servers.
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        Ah, shadow profiles again. Maybe the real problem here is that people talk about "your data". There's no "your data" in a shadow profile of you. There's data about you. I have a feeling that talking about the data as if it belonged to the person it refers to makes people reach weird conclusions. I'm having problems with articulating clear examples, but I don't like the very concept of ownership of facts - whether they're algorithms or phone<->name associations.
bikamonki 10y ago
Except I do not trust my government. Do you?

RodericDay 10y ago

no reason not to make it as hard as possible on them. it makes it easier for alternatives to exist in their shadow.

chinathrow 10y ago

Yes there is. Call in legislation to fix the missing things. US data protection laws are a joke. EU leads the way. We'll see more in the future, I am positive.

0xmohit 10y ago

> You can go get an off-contract sim card, use it on a clean Android The moment you connect to your WiFi, Google gets the SSID and can relate other devices using it. Possibly (?) the SSID is also known to WhatsApp. Does it really help much?

kbaker 10y ago
You don't even have to have wifi enabled, even when Wi-Fi is OFF it will still scan for SSIDs to use for location by default. You have to disable an obscure setting to get it to stop this behavior.
- marco1 10y ago
  But even after the device has detected the (B)SSID, you have to enable either Wi-Fi or your mobile data connection for the device to communicate with Google's servers. Still, just as worrisome.
  - psykpsyk 10y ago
    What are you guys arguing about? That you can't escape those services grubby apetite for data was exactly GPs point...

tarancato 10y ago

Just a small heads up, WhatsApp supports installing the apk file directly without going through the Play Store. https://www.whatsapp.com/android/ https://www.whatsapp.com/android/

erikpukinskis 10y ago

You can escape into noise, but it's work. Privacy is an arms race between information and noise.

thr0waway1239 10y ago
That's a nice way to put it, but it may not be that inevitable. Here is a very simple idea: next time you talk to one of your friends who works at FB/Goog/etc. ask them pointedly how they can work at a place which obviously lacks any morals/ethics. Their first reaction would be to defend their actions, of course, but if a few people start doing this, my guess is that the message will start going up slowly but surely. After all, what are they going to do? Stop having friends? Those are the words that the head honchos at FB/Goog/.. etc are telling themselves about the viability of their privacy violations. At this point, no shame in turning it against them.
- fwn 10y ago
  > After all, what are they going to do? Stop having friends? They probably opt for more tolerant friends. ..but that's just a guess.

ryandrake 10y ago

You could always, I dunno... stop using Facebook and WhatsApp and other software that you find harmful. I know, totally crazy idea. Just throwing it out there.

kuschku 10y ago
Network effects – at this point even some schools and newspapers are heavily using WhatsApp – make that impossible. Which means either WhatsApp is replaced by something else, or it becomes as regulated as any governmental media. EDIT: A bank already replaced most of their support channels with a WhatsApp chat. It IS a utility at that point.
- blowski 10y ago
  Also, employers and travel authorities who view the lack of a Facebook accountant as suspicious.
lbebber 10y ago
That snark is uncalled for. Stopping using WhatsApp and Facebook would make communication with some groups much more difficult for me, for example, because everyone uses them.
- cortesoft 10y ago
  Ok, so in return Facebook and WhatsApp get to learn about you. That is the cost of doing business with them. Why is that cost so different than the normal cost we pay for things (cash money)? Yes, things we value have costs. It is always a sacrifice to go without that thing, but if we want to AVOID having to go without it, we have to pay something. "I can't believe you are making me pay this cell phone bill! I have no choice but to use it, and you are CHARGING ME MONEY for it?! This is outrageous!" I mean, there are things we need even more that we have to pay for - food, shelter, etc. In order to get something from someone else, you have to give them something in return that they value. That is just how the world works.
  - 10y ago