3 ms·

> whatsapp ... conversations You seriously believe that the encrypted communications platform that the US government desperately wants a backdoor in is secretl

> whatsapp ... conversations You seriously believe that the encrypted communications platform that the US government desperately wants a backdoor in is secretly backdoored by Facebook for ads? Something that mundane? The platform (WhatsApp) that is subject to huge public skepticism, who's source code is so limited in scope that it's probably been audited by every security researcher that is interested in posting a "I found Facebook being evil" blog post? And you believe they are using this data for ads? The most obvious thing ever to see if you audit/monitor the app? This is why theories like this borderline paranoia. FUD. Nothing more. Statements like that discredit your entire argument. -- And yes, of course Facebook uses trackers on sites to figure out what sites you've been to. Of course they use unencrypted data available to them to target ads. Your data is already in their database. Just because it's in another table to allow the "big bad ad agencies" to target you (data the ad agencies can not even see) does not make it any different. Everyone does this. Everyone will continue doing this. There is absolutely nothing morally wrong with that status quo. The only part that can be morally wrong, is if a human themselves inspects the database without respect for privacy. And this is why we have laws for dealing with malicious employees, robberies, house break-ins, etc. Things happen whether it's online or offline. All of this was possible (arguably even more so) before Facebook. It's just more centralized now. This paranoia simply needs to stop. EDIT: Adding, it makes complete sense that Facebook's A-team is not working on ads. Taking a page from Google: Diversification. Ads are auto-pilot income, have hit their tech ceiling, and Facebook's longevity depends on investment outside of their core business. I am unaware how this is so unbelievable to some.

danShumway 7y ago
Facebook doesn't need to backdoor your encrypted messages to use WhatsApp for ads, there's still a lot of interesting data they can get based just on the metadata of who you converse with. And that's not paranoia, it's openly something that Facebook is doing right now[0]. > In a blogpost, WhatsApp announced it would begin sharing names and phone numbers with its parent company, to allow its more than 1 billion users “to communicate with businesses that matter to you too” – like notifications from airlines, delivery services or your bank, for example. > Facebook will also use that data to make friend suggestions and combine that data with the reams of information it has already collected so that it can tailor ads even more specifically to your interests. If you think that Facebook isn't mining WhatsApp data for ads, you aren't paying enough attention to Facebook. I don't think they've backdoored the E2E encryption (though it wouldn't surprise me if in the future they started doing on-device keyword detection for ads, which wouldn't technically require them to insert a backdoor). But it doesn't really matter, they don't need to go that far. > Everyone does this. Everyone will continue doing this. There is absolutely nothing morally wrong with that status quo. This is how all of these conversations always go. Privacy advocates are paranoid crazy people, until it turns out that companies are spying on you. Then suddenly the argument is that the status quo is fine and the controls are great and everyone always knew they were being recorded, and why is everyone making a big deal about it? If you're frustrated that people come up with crazy theories about Facebook turning on their microphones, those theories might exist because smart TVs and mobile devices already use audio to track you[1]. Every time that someone raises an alarm on a privacy violation, and people tell them they're paranoid, and then the paranoid people turn out to be right, the theories about tracking get a little bolder in response. If advertisers want the paranoia to stop, maybe they should stop giving people reasons to be paranoid. The current state of privacy conspiracy theories is entirely, 100% the fault of the advertising industry and other mass data-collection industries and government departments. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/25/whatsapp-backlash-facebook-data-privacy-users https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/25/whatsapp-... [1]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/beware-of-ads-that-use-inaudible-sound-to-link-your-phone-tv-tablet-and-pc/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/beware-of-ads-th...
- iscoelho 7y ago
  These types of companies won't get any good press no matter what they do. Everyone will find some way to justify their actions as evil. Everyone will find some way to say "they are still evil on the inside, just pretending not to be." People are not understanding this encourages these companies to stay the same. You can not satisfy those who do not want satisfaction. But let's attack this argument on a technical level again: The data you speak of already resides in Facebook's database. There is no privacy implications of them using data, your messages, your pictures, and metadata that is already in their database or one of their children companies databases, for ads. The only data you could question is trackers on third-party sides, but the "everyone else is doing it" argument makes it silly for Facebook to not do so as well to compete considering the reach that they have. Call that a weak excuse, but they are offering a free product in exchange for translating to money and are one of the few social startups that have actually been able to pull it off without hemorrhaging money. The amount of press for example that Facebook has received the last 2 years on almost completely FUD topics is absolutely astounding. Cambridge Analytica was even FUD, and is still to this day misunderstood. Cambridge Analytica leaked data from your Facebook account via an exploit and phishing. This was a feature designed to give developers more opportunities. The amount of damage this has done to real legitimate apps in the Facebook ecosystem can not be understated, and since then Facebook's product quality has backpedalled considerably. All because the media spun this incorrectly, did not understand the technical details at hand, and pushed responsibility onto Facebook. My 2 cents: We need to focus on the facts. There are real problems with privacy in society, and we are wasting so much time focusing on misunderstood problems to focus on the real ones. These are not scandals. These are weak news days. Issues like this get all the limelight, make all the headlines, and reduce visibility to actual real life problems incl. those related to privacy. That needs to stop.
  - danShumway 7y ago
    > But let's attack this argument on a technical level again: The data you speak of already resides in Facebook's database. There is no privacy implications of them using data, your messages, your pictures, and metadata that is already in their database or one of their children companies databases, for ads. On a related note, my lawyer already knows where the money is buried, so are there any privacy implications in him giving the police a few tips? Privacy isn't just about who has my data -- it's about how my data gets used. The use of ads to target me against my will, or to allow other people to target me against my will is a violation. Facebook does share data with other companies, but even if they didn't, there's no practical difference between a company targeting me directly based on my data and a company asking Facebook to target me based on the same data. Facebook is just acting as a proxy.

danShumway 7y ago

Facebook doesn't need to backdoor your encrypted messages to use WhatsApp for ads, there's still a lot of interesting data they can get based just on the metadata of who you converse with. And that's not paranoia, it's openly something that Facebook is doing right now[0]. > In a blogpost, WhatsApp announced it would begin sharing names and phone numbers with its parent company, to allow its more than 1 billion users “to communicate with businesses that matter to you too” – like notifications from airlines, delivery services or your bank, for example. > Facebook will also use that data to make friend suggestions and combine that data with the reams of information it has already collected so that it can tailor ads even more specifically to your interests. If you think that Facebook isn't mining WhatsApp data for ads, you aren't paying enough attention to Facebook. I don't think they've backdoored the E2E encryption (though it wouldn't surprise me if in the future they started doing on-device keyword detection for ads, which wouldn't technically require them to insert a backdoor). But it doesn't really matter, they don't need to go that far. > Everyone does this. Everyone will continue doing this. There is absolutely nothing morally wrong with that status quo. This is how all of these conversations always go. Privacy advocates are paranoid crazy people, until it turns out that companies are spying on you. Then suddenly the argument is that the status quo is fine and the controls are great and everyone always knew they were being recorded, and why is everyone making a big deal about it? If you're frustrated that people come up with crazy theories about Facebook turning on their microphones, those theories might exist because smart TVs and mobile devices already use audio to track you[1]. Every time that someone raises an alarm on a privacy violation, and people tell them they're paranoid, and then the paranoid people turn out to be right, the theories about tracking get a little bolder in response. If advertisers want the paranoia to stop, maybe they should stop giving people reasons to be paranoid. The current state of privacy conspiracy theories is entirely, 100% the fault of the advertising industry and other mass data-collection industries and government departments. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/25/whatsapp-backlash-facebook-data-privacy-users https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/25/whatsapp-... [1]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/beware-of-ads-that-use-inaudible-sound-to-link-your-phone-tv-tablet-and-pc/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/beware-of-ads-th...

iscoelho 7y ago
These types of companies won't get any good press no matter what they do. Everyone will find some way to justify their actions as evil. Everyone will find some way to say "they are still evil on the inside, just pretending not to be." People are not understanding this encourages these companies to stay the same. You can not satisfy those who do not want satisfaction. But let's attack this argument on a technical level again: The data you speak of already resides in Facebook's database. There is no privacy implications of them using data, your messages, your pictures, and metadata that is already in their database or one of their children companies databases, for ads. The only data you could question is trackers on third-party sides, but the "everyone else is doing it" argument makes it silly for Facebook to not do so as well to compete considering the reach that they have. Call that a weak excuse, but they are offering a free product in exchange for translating to money and are one of the few social startups that have actually been able to pull it off without hemorrhaging money. The amount of press for example that Facebook has received the last 2 years on almost completely FUD topics is absolutely astounding. Cambridge Analytica was even FUD, and is still to this day misunderstood. Cambridge Analytica leaked data from your Facebook account via an exploit and phishing. This was a feature designed to give developers more opportunities. The amount of damage this has done to real legitimate apps in the Facebook ecosystem can not be understated, and since then Facebook's product quality has backpedalled considerably. All because the media spun this incorrectly, did not understand the technical details at hand, and pushed responsibility onto Facebook. My 2 cents: We need to focus on the facts. There are real problems with privacy in society, and we are wasting so much time focusing on misunderstood problems to focus on the real ones. These are not scandals. These are weak news days. Issues like this get all the limelight, make all the headlines, and reduce visibility to actual real life problems incl. those related to privacy. That needs to stop.
- danShumway 7y ago
  > But let's attack this argument on a technical level again: The data you speak of already resides in Facebook's database. There is no privacy implications of them using data, your messages, your pictures, and metadata that is already in their database or one of their children companies databases, for ads. On a related note, my lawyer already knows where the money is buried, so are there any privacy implications in him giving the police a few tips? Privacy isn't just about who has my data -- it's about how my data gets used. The use of ads to target me against my will, or to allow other people to target me against my will is a violation. Facebook does share data with other companies, but even if they didn't, there's no practical difference between a company targeting me directly based on my data and a company asking Facebook to target me based on the same data. Facebook is just acting as a proxy.