6 ms·

As I understand it even with click thru agreement like this it is still illegal in the EU. Could be an interesting case on the way... I believe that WhatsApp on

by rusk 6y ago

As I understand it even with click thru agreement like this it is still illegal in the EU. Could be an interesting case on the way... I believe that WhatsApp only real option in this case is to stop serving the EU, which I feel as an EU residents could only be a good thing!

eznzt 6y ago
It would be a good thing to lose a chat app that works very well and has E2E by default?
- jcalve 6y ago
  Yes, it would force people to use better alternatives such as Signal or Telegram.
  - eznzt 6y ago
    If you need to force people to use alternatives it's because they are not much better to begin with. I've used the Signal app and it's a bug fest. Telegram is not even encrypted by default and there is no option for encrypted groups.
    - GraemeMeyer 6y ago
      > If you need to force people to use alternatives it's because they are not much better to begin with. This isn't necessarily true - that's basically the problem with monopolies and the point of anti-trust. The network effect really can entrench an inferior product.
      - Spivak 6y ago
        That's not a useful definition of better though. WhatsApp, Messenger, etc. are better because they're reliable and the people I want to talk to use them. MMS messages are hot garbage but they're still better than a lot of alternatives because everyone with a phone can receive them.
    - josefx 6y ago
      Main reason I use whats app is because everyone else I deal with uses whats app, not because it has specific features. I could probably list a different chat app and social networking site for every time I switched a school and when I started to study.
      - rusk 6y ago
        I do personally believe that for all its faults WhatsApp is the best. It’s a pity about that but I guess FB have to pay all those great developers somehow. It’s up to regulation to set the boundaries for what’s acceptable in business so let’s see what happens.
        josefx 6y ago
        > It’s a pity about that but I guess FB have to pay all those great developers somehow. They could just run it as a paid service again? They had a minimal annual charge before the Facebook acquisition and probably could have raised that, instead Facebook made it "free" which should have been a warning sign of things to come.
        hadrien01 6y ago
        One of the reasons the founders left was that FB wanted to put ads and track users, and didn't even want to try to make a Business paid version like WhatsApp proposed.
    - skinkestek 6y ago
      > Telegram is not even encrypted by default and there is no option for encrypted groups. Friendly reminder that encryption is more than E2E-encryption despite what certain people on HN thinks. Telegram is encrypted point-to-point by default. Same as banks, modern mail etc. Can we stop spreading technical misinformation now, please? There's plenty of other issues with Telegram and if we stop crying wolf over the neighbors grand danois people might actually believe us when there is an actual wolf.
  - turkeywelder 6y ago
    that'll never happen - WhatsApp is almost WeChat for Europe, it's ubiquitous and the network effect is so strong you'll really struggle to get masses of people to switch away fom it. 99% of people outside of the HN bubble will just look at the dialog, click OK and carry on as normal.
    - rusk 6y ago
      If WhatsApp can’t be legally compliant then they simply can’t provide the service. It’s up to them.
    - submeta 6y ago
      Instead of surrendering we - technically aware people - should think about possibilities to make them respect privacy or think about ways to change the situation.
      - Spivak 6y ago
        Yes but not clicking through the shrink-wrap agreement isn't a real way to do it. Legislation that requires people be able to say no to data collection without loss of service would go a long way.
    - StreamBright 6y ago
      I have messaged a bunch of my EU friends with this article. Most of them were shocked.
      - technocratius 6y ago
        I did the same. Mixed reactions, some shocked, some shrug and move on. And my friends are academically educated and relatively conscious of this issue I believe. Probably not the most representative sample...
        StreamBright 6y ago
        I think this level ignorance is pretty common today.
  - krageon 6y ago
    Signal is run by someone who hates repeatable builds and open platforms. Telegram is to the russian government what whatsapp is to the US government. That is to say, both options are bad. Of course it is conceptually better to spread your information over many separate information silos so that your data is harder to correlate. That should not be the bar we aspire to though.
    - Freak_NL 6y ago
      All of these apps seem to hate open platforms and third party clients; Signal just as much as WhatsApp. I wouldn't even mind using WhatsApp if I could just open a browser window on any modern computer and log on like I can with Twitter. But no, I need to have a smartphone with either Android or IOS. They all want that magic unique personal identifier that is the mobile phone number to prevent you from having more than one persona, and they all want their closed apps as the sole way of using their service. Of course, that requirement is exactly how they implement the user lock-in, so it's not going anywhere until legislation forces them to open up.
      - vorticalbox 6y ago
        Signal is actually open source but I agree with the sentiment. Services now just want some person info they can link to you and that actually scares me a little.
        Freak_NL 6y ago
        You're right about Signal having an open source client of course. It's a closed platform because of the 'no-forks-allowed' stipulations.
        Bit32 6y ago
        The main reason for not wishing that Signal is forked revolves around adding new features. It stops things being fragmented. As both the client _and the server_ is open source though it's entirely possible to do things like Signal<->Matrix bridges.
- fsflover 6y ago
  > E2E by default Only if you trust Facebook with their proprietary software.
tomp 6y ago
Who cares if it's "technically illegal" if there's no fines for it. I seriously doubt that the EU will grow teeth anytime soon (but I hope to be surprised!).
- rusk 6y ago
  It’s not the EU you need to worry about it’s the courts ... check out the whole Max Schrems Facebook thing and the Apple Tax stuff is yet ongoing ...
  - corty 6y ago
    Yes, but both are examples of the EU not actually wanting to do the right thing, even if the courts say so. Privacy shield was shot down by Schrems in court, only to be replaced by the EU mumbling about "standard contract clauses, just do the same as before". No billions in penalties in sight. Same for the Apple (and others') taxes in Ireland: While the Irish have been told by courts and the rest of Europe to collect the taxes they are owed, they just refuse to do so.
    - rusk 6y ago
      No you're out of date, the standard contract clauses thing was blown out of the water. It's a big problem for Facebook, not sure where it's at now. Also your understanding of the Apple case is a little out of whack too. There's a lot of subtlety to it, but basically the court ruled in Apple's favour on a technicality and there is a revised appeal pending.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- llampx 6y ago
  What's the alternative? Has the FTC, FCC or any other US agency taken any action against the American big tech companies? The US sees FAANG as its babies and will protect them at all costs. Its up to the rest of the world to rein them in.
Number157 6y ago
You could try lodging a report: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rights-citizens/redress/what-should-i-do-if-i-think-my-personal-data-protection-rights-havent-been-respected_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo...
elmo2you 6y ago
I believe so too. In addition, I vaguely remember something about the acquisition of WhatsApp by Facebook to be only approved under condition that exactly this kind of data sharing would not happen. Although I have my doubts about it happening soon, because the immediate impact it would have on real everyday life could by rather disastrous initially (something Facebook no doubt is aware of), the EU should probably declare/certify Facebook as a rogue/criminal organization. I just can't see it any other way, with Facebook's blatant disregard for anything but its own greedy interests. If Facebook keeps pushing their "luck" like this, it should simply have all its assets on EU soil frozen. If eventually rules a criminal organization, confiscated too. It would be very sad and unfortunate for any EU citizens working for the company, who no doubt have no say in Facebook's criminal enterprise. But the current status quo is becoming completely unacceptable. History has plenty of lessons, about criminal organizations rising to (hard to defeat levels of) power. In many cases more than anything because both societies and governments/authorities failed to respond appropriately in time, when they still had a fair chance containing those (with far less effort). All that is even without opening the can of worms that is the access US government agencies have to all of Facebook's data.
smueller1234 6y ago
Probably relevant: if I go to the terms/privacy policy via settings, I am greeted by the following preamble. "If you don't live in the European Region, WhatsApp LLC provides WhatsApp to you under this Terms of Service and Privacy Policy."

by rusk 6y ago

eznzt 6y ago

It would be a good thing to lose a chat app that works very well and has E2E by default?

jcalve 6y ago
Yes, it would force people to use better alternatives such as Signal or Telegram.
- eznzt 6y ago
  If you need to force people to use alternatives it's because they are not much better to begin with. I've used the Signal app and it's a bug fest. Telegram is not even encrypted by default and there is no option for encrypted groups.
  - GraemeMeyer 6y ago
    > If you need to force people to use alternatives it's because they are not much better to begin with. This isn't necessarily true - that's basically the problem with monopolies and the point of anti-trust. The network effect really can entrench an inferior product.
    - Spivak 6y ago
      That's not a useful definition of better though. WhatsApp, Messenger, etc. are better because they're reliable and the people I want to talk to use them. MMS messages are hot garbage but they're still better than a lot of alternatives because everyone with a phone can receive them.
  - josefx 6y ago
    Main reason I use whats app is because everyone else I deal with uses whats app, not because it has specific features. I could probably list a different chat app and social networking site for every time I switched a school and when I started to study.
    - rusk 6y ago
      I do personally believe that for all its faults WhatsApp is the best. It’s a pity about that but I guess FB have to pay all those great developers somehow. It’s up to regulation to set the boundaries for what’s acceptable in business so let’s see what happens.
      - josefx 6y ago
        > It’s a pity about that but I guess FB have to pay all those great developers somehow. They could just run it as a paid service again? They had a minimal annual charge before the Facebook acquisition and probably could have raised that, instead Facebook made it "free" which should have been a warning sign of things to come.
        hadrien01 6y ago
        One of the reasons the founders left was that FB wanted to put ads and track users, and didn't even want to try to make a Business paid version like WhatsApp proposed.
  - skinkestek 6y ago
    > Telegram is not even encrypted by default and there is no option for encrypted groups. Friendly reminder that encryption is more than E2E-encryption despite what certain people on HN thinks. Telegram is encrypted point-to-point by default. Same as banks, modern mail etc. Can we stop spreading technical misinformation now, please? There's plenty of other issues with Telegram and if we stop crying wolf over the neighbors grand danois people might actually believe us when there is an actual wolf.
- turkeywelder 6y ago
  that'll never happen - WhatsApp is almost WeChat for Europe, it's ubiquitous and the network effect is so strong you'll really struggle to get masses of people to switch away fom it. 99% of people outside of the HN bubble will just look at the dialog, click OK and carry on as normal.
  - rusk 6y ago
    If WhatsApp can’t be legally compliant then they simply can’t provide the service. It’s up to them.
  - submeta 6y ago
    Instead of surrendering we - technically aware people - should think about possibilities to make them respect privacy or think about ways to change the situation.
    - Spivak 6y ago
      Yes but not clicking through the shrink-wrap agreement isn't a real way to do it. Legislation that requires people be able to say no to data collection without loss of service would go a long way.
  - StreamBright 6y ago
    I have messaged a bunch of my EU friends with this article. Most of them were shocked.
    - technocratius 6y ago
      I did the same. Mixed reactions, some shocked, some shrug and move on. And my friends are academically educated and relatively conscious of this issue I believe. Probably not the most representative sample...
      - StreamBright 6y ago
        I think this level ignorance is pretty common today.
- krageon 6y ago
  Signal is run by someone who hates repeatable builds and open platforms. Telegram is to the russian government what whatsapp is to the US government. That is to say, both options are bad. Of course it is conceptually better to spread your information over many separate information silos so that your data is harder to correlate. That should not be the bar we aspire to though.
  - Freak_NL 6y ago
    All of these apps seem to hate open platforms and third party clients; Signal just as much as WhatsApp. I wouldn't even mind using WhatsApp if I could just open a browser window on any modern computer and log on like I can with Twitter. But no, I need to have a smartphone with either Android or IOS. They all want that magic unique personal identifier that is the mobile phone number to prevent you from having more than one persona, and they all want their closed apps as the sole way of using their service. Of course, that requirement is exactly how they implement the user lock-in, so it's not going anywhere until legislation forces them to open up.
    - vorticalbox 6y ago
      Signal is actually open source but I agree with the sentiment. Services now just want some person info they can link to you and that actually scares me a little.
      - Freak_NL 6y ago
        You're right about Signal having an open source client of course. It's a closed platform because of the 'no-forks-allowed' stipulations.
        Bit32 6y ago
        The main reason for not wishing that Signal is forked revolves around adding new features. It stops things being fragmented. As both the client _and the server_ is open source though it's entirely possible to do things like Signal<->Matrix bridges.
fsflover 6y ago
> E2E by default Only if you trust Facebook with their proprietary software.

tomp 6y ago

Who cares if it's "technically illegal" if there's no fines for it. I seriously doubt that the EU will grow teeth anytime soon (but I hope to be surprised!).

rusk 6y ago
It’s not the EU you need to worry about it’s the courts ... check out the whole Max Schrems Facebook thing and the Apple Tax stuff is yet ongoing ...
- corty 6y ago
  Yes, but both are examples of the EU not actually wanting to do the right thing, even if the courts say so. Privacy shield was shot down by Schrems in court, only to be replaced by the EU mumbling about "standard contract clauses, just do the same as before". No billions in penalties in sight. Same for the Apple (and others') taxes in Ireland: While the Irish have been told by courts and the rest of Europe to collect the taxes they are owed, they just refuse to do so.
  - rusk 6y ago
    No you're out of date, the standard contract clauses thing was blown out of the water. It's a big problem for Facebook, not sure where it's at now. Also your understanding of the Apple case is a little out of whack too. There's a lot of subtlety to it, but basically the court ruled in Apple's favour on a technicality and there is a revised appeal pending.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
llampx 6y ago
What's the alternative? Has the FTC, FCC or any other US agency taken any action against the American big tech companies? The US sees FAANG as its babies and will protect them at all costs. Its up to the rest of the world to rein them in.

Number157 6y ago

You could try lodging a report: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rights-citizens/redress/what-should-i-do-if-i-think-my-personal-data-protection-rights-havent-been-respected_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo...

elmo2you 6y ago

I believe so too. In addition, I vaguely remember something about the acquisition of WhatsApp by Facebook to be only approved under condition that exactly this kind of data sharing would not happen. Although I have my doubts about it happening soon, because the immediate impact it would have on real everyday life could by rather disastrous initially (something Facebook no doubt is aware of), the EU should probably declare/certify Facebook as a rogue/criminal organization. I just can't see it any other way, with Facebook's blatant disregard for anything but its own greedy interests. If Facebook keeps pushing their "luck" like this, it should simply have all its assets on EU soil frozen. If eventually rules a criminal organization, confiscated too. It would be very sad and unfortunate for any EU citizens working for the company, who no doubt have no say in Facebook's criminal enterprise. But the current status quo is becoming completely unacceptable. History has plenty of lessons, about criminal organizations rising to (hard to defeat levels of) power. In many cases more than anything because both societies and governments/authorities failed to respond appropriately in time, when they still had a fair chance containing those (with far less effort). All that is even without opening the can of worms that is the access US government agencies have to all of Facebook's data.

smueller1234 6y ago

Probably relevant: if I go to the terms/privacy policy via settings, I am greeted by the following preamble. "If you don't live in the European Region, WhatsApp LLC provides WhatsApp to you under this Terms of Service and Privacy Policy."