3 ms·

True, but no reason to let companies collect even more data than they need to perform the transaction. Your argument goes a bit like "every lock can be picked,

by wsy 10y ago

True, but no reason to let companies collect even more data than they need to perform the transaction. Your argument goes a bit like "every lock can be picked, so why are you opposed to just keeping your door open?"

bduerst 10y ago
That's a terrible straw man. My counterargument to the "indeterminate potential for future abuse that makes it important" is that the same logic applies to all human transactions, so it's a moot premise. Increased security standards on metadata for human transactions is actually the right response to the existence of bad actors, but increased security != forcing bans on the use of metadata.
- wsy 10y ago
  It's not about outright banning, it's about limiting to the minimum amount required to perform the service. Btw. nobody complains about WhatsApp holding metadata about connections between people. We complain about WhatsApp transmitting this data in a quite hidden fashion to Facebook.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    >It's not about outright banning, it's about limiting to the minimum amount required to perform the service That's not how the German government is defining their ban. >We complain about WhatsApp transmitting this data in a quite hidden fashion to Facebook. FB announced last month [1] that they were sharing specific types of data between Whatsapp and FB. That's not "hidden". [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/technology/relaxing-privacy-vow-whatsapp-to-share-some-data-with-facebook.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/technology/relaxing-privac...
    - wsy 10y ago
      An article in NY Times does not help to make it less hidden, particularly for German users. What is required is to inform every user individually and ask for his/her permission to transmit the data to another party. Explicit permission (= informed consent) is necessary because this data transfer is not required to perform the service (see above).

by wsy 10y ago

bduerst 10y ago

That's a terrible straw man. My counterargument to the "indeterminate potential for future abuse that makes it important" is that the same logic applies to all human transactions, so it's a moot premise. Increased security standards on metadata for human transactions is actually the right response to the existence of bad actors, but increased security != forcing bans on the use of metadata.

wsy 10y ago
It's not about outright banning, it's about limiting to the minimum amount required to perform the service. Btw. nobody complains about WhatsApp holding metadata about connections between people. We complain about WhatsApp transmitting this data in a quite hidden fashion to Facebook.
- bduerst 10y ago
  >It's not about outright banning, it's about limiting to the minimum amount required to perform the service That's not how the German government is defining their ban. >We complain about WhatsApp transmitting this data in a quite hidden fashion to Facebook. FB announced last month [1] that they were sharing specific types of data between Whatsapp and FB. That's not "hidden". [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/technology/relaxing-privacy-vow-whatsapp-to-share-some-data-with-facebook.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/technology/relaxing-privac...
  - wsy 10y ago
    An article in NY Times does not help to make it less hidden, particularly for German users. What is required is to inform every user individually and ask for his/her permission to transmit the data to another party. Explicit permission (= informed consent) is necessary because this data transfer is not required to perform the service (see above).