6 ms·

Also, given that metaphor, if I'm whispering to a friend in a public square, I do have an expectation of privacy in the sense that there should not be boom mics

Also, given that metaphor, if I'm whispering to a friend in a public square, I do have an expectation of privacy in the sense that there should not be boom mics placed everywhere to pick up the smallest of conversations.

cm2187 7y ago
Or talking to a friend on your mobile phone. Your phone company is not allowed to wire tap the conversation.
- maehwasu 7y ago
  Yeah, this is the most apt comparison, and is barely even a metaphor. Shocking that it's not applied to FB.
  - testvox 7y ago
    Your phone company can actually record your conversations so long as they ensure all parties to the conversation are aware they are doing so.
    - qrbLPHiKpiux 7y ago
      Only if the parties agree and continued use of the service argument isn’t fair.
  - Frost1x 7y ago
    I believe these protections are related to voice specifically, from what I recall. The law on record has to do specifically with voice data and excludes textual forms of data. If you were voice chatting over Facebook they would probably have to make you aware if they were listening/processing the data for words. By make you aware, it probably means bury it in the ToS on page 784 in a generic and ambiguous way and that is sufficient for court should someone litigate. Now when you start looking at voice assistants like Alexa, GA, etc. the waters could get muddier.
- PeterStuer 7y ago
  Or when you send your friend a letter, the post office isn't expected to open the envelope to read your communication.
  - cm2187 7y ago
    Not even isn't expected. Isn't legally allowed.
    - ToFundorNot 7y ago
      Unless you're the NSA / CSIS / Etc.
derefr 7y ago
The “expectation of privacy” isn’t about what you would expect regular people to do. It’s about what you would expect malicious actors like spies (or just private detectives hired to tail you) to do. You wouldn’t expect to be safe from a detective with a boom mic in the public square—therefore, the square is not a place where you should be having private conversations (even whispered) if you have anything to hide.
- comboy 7y ago
  I would argue that's exactly what the expectation of privacy is. Malicious actors on the other hand are the reality of privacy.
- jasonlotito 7y ago
  A better metaphor I've found is a telegram. You dictate your message and someone else inputs the message and someone on the other end transcribes the message and delivers it to the recipient. Is there an expectation that only you and the recipient will know what the message is? No. There are at least two other individuals involved there. I've honest never understood how the expectation of privacy arose from using Facebook. You are literally sending your information to Facebook. If anyone is at fault here, it's browser makers who enable sending your data to Facebook. Facebook isn't reaching into your computer "stealing" your data. It's recording what is being sent. Obviously talking about the web site here.
- msiyer 7y ago
  At times, a public square is the best place to have a private/secret talk.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    Except their point is that the public square is not. "Most convenient" is not the same as best wrt private conversations.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  I wouldn't expect to be safe from that detective in my own house, in a sealed room! But I certainly have an expectation of privacy there.
em500 7y ago
You can use Whatsapp to whisper to your friend. It's end-to-end encrypted.
- toastal 7y ago
  And get ads in your conversation like real life. This private dialog is brought you by Squarespace.
- msiyer 7y ago
  Encrypted by whom? Who has the keys? WhatsApp is not good for anything private.
  - rakoo 7y ago
    As always, it depends on who your enemy is. For the ultra vast majority of people, and in the continuity of the "public place" metaphor, it's more than enough.
  - nothrabannosir 7y ago
    Are you implying that Facebook can snoop on the contents of whatsapp messages? That'd be a pretty significant scandal. No matter how disillusioned you are with Facebook, directly and overtly lying to customers about encryption would be next level. Definitely beyond their current tactics of circumspect honesty, e.g. TFA. Until proven otherwise, I think it is absolutely fair to say WhatsApp messages are, indeed, encrypted end-to-end with no possibility for FB to read the contents. So, to answer your question: encrypted by users, and the users have the keys. FB doesn't. WhatsApp is definitely good for most things private. Moreso than e.g. Facebook wall or messenger itself, as per TFA. Sneaky fine print is one thing. Plain lying is another.
    - StreamBright 7y ago
      I am not sure if understand how encryption works in the context of messaging applications. Unless the two parties communicating generate a set of keys for that particular session there is a high chance that a 3rd party who is operating the service can read their messages. This is the theory. Now, in practice you can see exactly the same. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2606495/facebook-can-read-your-private-whatsapp-conversations-and-snooping-governments-might-be-copping-a-look-too/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2606495/facebook-can-read-your...
baby 7y ago
It is not a metaphor, it is an analogy.

cm2187 7y ago

Or talking to a friend on your mobile phone. Your phone company is not allowed to wire tap the conversation.

maehwasu 7y ago
Yeah, this is the most apt comparison, and is barely even a metaphor. Shocking that it's not applied to FB.
- testvox 7y ago
  Your phone company can actually record your conversations so long as they ensure all parties to the conversation are aware they are doing so.
  - qrbLPHiKpiux 7y ago
    Only if the parties agree and continued use of the service argument isn’t fair.
- Frost1x 7y ago
  I believe these protections are related to voice specifically, from what I recall. The law on record has to do specifically with voice data and excludes textual forms of data. If you were voice chatting over Facebook they would probably have to make you aware if they were listening/processing the data for words. By make you aware, it probably means bury it in the ToS on page 784 in a generic and ambiguous way and that is sufficient for court should someone litigate. Now when you start looking at voice assistants like Alexa, GA, etc. the waters could get muddier.
PeterStuer 7y ago
Or when you send your friend a letter, the post office isn't expected to open the envelope to read your communication.
- cm2187 7y ago
  Not even isn't expected. Isn't legally allowed.
  - ToFundorNot 7y ago
    Unless you're the NSA / CSIS / Etc.

derefr 7y ago

The “expectation of privacy” isn’t about what you would expect regular people to do. It’s about what you would expect malicious actors like spies (or just private detectives hired to tail you) to do. You wouldn’t expect to be safe from a detective with a boom mic in the public square—therefore, the square is not a place where you should be having private conversations (even whispered) if you have anything to hide.

comboy 7y ago
I would argue that's exactly what the expectation of privacy is. Malicious actors on the other hand are the reality of privacy.
jasonlotito 7y ago
A better metaphor I've found is a telegram. You dictate your message and someone else inputs the message and someone on the other end transcribes the message and delivers it to the recipient. Is there an expectation that only you and the recipient will know what the message is? No. There are at least two other individuals involved there. I've honest never understood how the expectation of privacy arose from using Facebook. You are literally sending your information to Facebook. If anyone is at fault here, it's browser makers who enable sending your data to Facebook. Facebook isn't reaching into your computer "stealing" your data. It's recording what is being sent. Obviously talking about the web site here.
msiyer 7y ago
At times, a public square is the best place to have a private/secret talk.
- bduerst 7y ago
  Except their point is that the public square is not. "Most convenient" is not the same as best wrt private conversations.
Dylan16807 7y ago
I wouldn't expect to be safe from that detective in my own house, in a sealed room! But I certainly have an expectation of privacy there.

em500 7y ago

You can use Whatsapp to whisper to your friend. It's end-to-end encrypted.

toastal 7y ago
And get ads in your conversation like real life. This private dialog is brought you by Squarespace.
msiyer 7y ago
Encrypted by whom? Who has the keys? WhatsApp is not good for anything private.
- rakoo 7y ago
  As always, it depends on who your enemy is. For the ultra vast majority of people, and in the continuity of the "public place" metaphor, it's more than enough.
- nothrabannosir 7y ago
  Are you implying that Facebook can snoop on the contents of whatsapp messages? That'd be a pretty significant scandal. No matter how disillusioned you are with Facebook, directly and overtly lying to customers about encryption would be next level. Definitely beyond their current tactics of circumspect honesty, e.g. TFA. Until proven otherwise, I think it is absolutely fair to say WhatsApp messages are, indeed, encrypted end-to-end with no possibility for FB to read the contents. So, to answer your question: encrypted by users, and the users have the keys. FB doesn't. WhatsApp is definitely good for most things private. Moreso than e.g. Facebook wall or messenger itself, as per TFA. Sneaky fine print is one thing. Plain lying is another.
  - StreamBright 7y ago
    I am not sure if understand how encryption works in the context of messaging applications. Unless the two parties communicating generate a set of keys for that particular session there is a high chance that a 3rd party who is operating the service can read their messages. This is the theory. Now, in practice you can see exactly the same. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2606495/facebook-can-read-your-private-whatsapp-conversations-and-snooping-governments-might-be-copping-a-look-too/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2606495/facebook-can-read-your...

baby 7y ago

It is not a metaphor, it is an analogy.