7 ms·

Privacy groups ask FTC to block Facebook-WhatsApp deal

83 points by rocky5 13y ago

enscr 13y ago
The important part from the article is : "until there is a clearer understanding of how the company intends to use the personal data of WhatsApp’s 450 million users" FB would be drooling over all the messages, pics & videos on Whatsapp. For person-to-person communication, I prefer a paid app over an ad-supported free one. If I wanted the latter, there are no shortage of options. I wonder how Whatsapp spells out the usage of personal data in their ToS.
- pigscantfly 13y ago
  I can certainly see how Facebook could monetize Whatsapp's data, but surely it isn't legal for them to retroactively change the ToS and examine the data, right?
  - luka-birsa 13y ago
    I am quite certain that they are not allowed to retroactively change the ToS and access the data legaly. That doesn't mean that they won't. Perhaps they will just do it behind the curtains, offering better Facebook Friend links.
  - stingraycharles 13y ago
    Most ToS state that their terms are subject to change. I do not know whether or not a company has to explicitly state that the terms provided are perpetual, but there are lots of examples of companies changing their ToS retroactively. For example: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/09/google-on-chrome-eula-controversy-our-bad-well-change-it/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/09/google-on-chrome-... http://boardingarea.com/viewfromthewing/2012/10/10/united-makes-another-retroactive-change-to-bonus-terms-and-conditions/ http://boardingarea.com/viewfromthewing/2012/10/10/united-ma... And here is an interesting paper about retroactive lawmaking by the government: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_Weienonline.pdf http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_Weie...
  - ejain 13y ago
    Pretty much all ToS have a clause that states that the terms can change any time. Where services differ is whether they'll provide you with advance notice (or if you're expected to check for changes yourself!), and if you are able to close your account and have your data removed (I believe this is required in the EU). Looking at http://www.whatsapp.com/legal/ http://www.whatsapp.com/legal/, it appears that WhatsApp falls into the "we can change our terms without letting you know" category, and I don't see anything about their data retention policy :-(
- netcan 13y ago
  'I prefer a paid app over an ad-supported free one' This gets mentioned a lot. I don't quite understand the logic. Say WhatsApp cost users $3.99, when Facebook buys them for 5 billion $3.99s what difference does it make? Facebook gets 3990 messages, a list of people you know, groups and whatever else. They can now add those to their vast collection of stuff they know about you, Facebook profile or not. What do the $3.99 payment or the 'one weird trick to improve your health' ads have to do with any of this? I don't get it.
  - stingraycharles 13y ago
    It is implied that when you pay, you are the customer, and when it's ad-supported you're the product instead. In this case, however, you paid for the Whatsapp app, but with Facebook acquiring Whatsapp you'll also pay with your personal data.
    - amirmc 13y ago
      > "It is implied that when you pay, you are the customer, and when it's ad-supported you're the product instead." This meme needs to die. It implies a dividing line where none exists. There is absolutely no reason why you can't end up being both a paying user of a product and have data about you sold on, aggregated etc. If a company can find a way to get paid twice, why wouldn't they do so?
      - enscr 13y ago
        The meme maybe a cliche but it's true. For a for-profit company, there are 4 outcomes : - Paid without ads : Whatsapp till now. Ideal for personal privacy - Paid with ads : Bad for users. If whatsapp was doing this, it won't stay hidden for long. The breadcrumbs of your data will lead to whatsapp's door. - Free without ads : Bad for company - Free with ads : Facebook. Bad for some, good for others. Point being, respectable companies that are in for the long run will probably have a clearly defined business plan i.e. sell the product to the user or sell ads to the user. If it's doing both, it becomes evident.
- kevcampb 13y ago
  Why not read the ToS? It's pretty clear and very user friendly. The short version - they don't store your data, and there is no right for Facebook to get that data historically. That's not to say they can't change it in future, but I'm sure if they do there will be a massive exodus from the network. And to further clarify on your comment - whatsapp is a paid for app, not advert supported. They only charge the iPhone users, however. Cost of the app is $1 for iPhone. Suspect android users would never touch it, as they don't have payment details set up on Google Play's store.
  - seabee 13y ago
    The Android version is free for one year only.
    - kevcampb 13y ago
      And it seems that they very rarely collect those fees, if at all. I've certainly had my android install over one year, and no request for payment. See plenty of other similar reports online. Suspect getting users to pay $1 is going to be a real pain, not for the cost, but for the convenience factor.
      - JTon 13y ago
        You say rarely, but I've never heard of any accounts of them collecting the fee. Do you know if they have?
        shawabawa3 13y ago
        In the UK, me and at least 3 of my friends have had to pay after a year. Not sure if anyone I know has not had to pay after a year
        JTon 13y ago
        What when it asks you to pay? Are you completely locked out until the transactions complete? or some variant (i.e. can receive msgs but can't send)
chatman 13y ago
Is there a legal way to stop Whatsapp from sharing my address book with Facebook?
- brandnewlow 13y ago
  Why do you think Facebook just paid $19b for them?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- enscr 13y ago
  Valid point. I hope a lawyer can weigh in.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  http://www.whatsapp.com/legal/ http://www.whatsapp.com/legal/ "In the Event of Merger, Sale, or Bankruptcy" You already gave them the right to share the information. (IANAL)
koosa 13y ago
Immediately after striking Facebook-WattsApp deal, Koum had mentioned in one of his tweets that users' privacy and security is their top concern and I hope he sticks to his guns.
- antr 13y ago
  He just sold WhatsApp to a company that he has no control over. His word is no good over this decision.
  - amirmc 13y ago
    He's joining the Board of Directors, so he does have much more control than most.
    - enscr 13y ago
      Sure he'll get a chair but that's where it stops. FB, the company is about targeted advertisements based on your profile, activity etc. There's no reason why they won't do that with Whatsapp. They have most definitely not paid $19 billion to get only 99 cent revenue every year. They perhaps are eyeing for much more per user.
      - jp555 13y ago
        With over 400 million active monthly users, that would be much closer to $399,000,000 than $0.99 every year. WhatsApp has nearly twice the active users as Twitter, and many more than Skype, LinkedIn, Instagram, and even Angry Birds. Not only that, WhatsApp has a user:employee ratio of over 8,000,000:1. That is quite remarkable, over 8x the users per employee than Youtube. There is much more value in WhatsApp for FB than just eyeballs.
      - sirkneeland 13y ago
        One element of corporate strategy is that there is strategic value not simply in having [acquired company X] but also having kept it out of competitors' hands. Facebook owning it means Google, Apple, Microsoft etc don't. Facebook likes that.
yuhong 13y ago
This is why I asked about what happened to Mark Zuckerberg since the early days of Facebook regarding privacy in a Reddit AMA.
- sirkneeland 13y ago
  $200 billion happened to him, that's what...
  - yuhong 13y ago
    What do you mean?
kevcampb 13y ago
Why would any privacy advocate want to block this deal? I can only see this deal being beneficial for privacy in the long run. Facebook are unable to collect data from the service without changing the ToS, which will likely cause a user exodus. It's going to put such a huge unrecoverable dent in Facebook's finances that it will be a significant long term disadvantage to them. If you are a privacy advocate, wait until the deal completes and then jump ship and bring your friends with you.
- x3c 13y ago
  You overestimate an average user's privacy concerns.
- Eye_of_Mordor 13y ago
  How is this good for privacy if Facebook's business model is selling personal information for financial gain? They could change the ToS anytime and sell all your personal information (several years of messages, photos, video) next day. Also, they could pass this all to the government for a nice pile of cash (without needing to change the ToS).
  - kevcampb 13y ago
    They cannot change the ToS to sell all of your personal information as their ToS specifically states they do not store or archive that information. Passing it to the government is another matter...
- amirmc 13y ago
  > "... without changing the ToS, which will likely cause a user exodus." How many people are even aware of what the ToS says? I don't recall a mass exodus from Google when they merged their privacy policies so I don't expect to see it here (for similar reasons - where would they go?). Edit: > "... then jump ship and bring your friends with you." You make it sound like this is easy. It isn't. That's why networks have value and are hard to build.
  - Zikes 13y ago
balladeer 13y ago
I just hope WhatsApp doesn't hand over deleted accounts' data to Facebook!

83 points by rocky5 13y ago

enscr 13y ago

The important part from the article is : "until there is a clearer understanding of how the company intends to use the personal data of WhatsApp’s 450 million users" FB would be drooling over all the messages, pics & videos on Whatsapp. For person-to-person communication, I prefer a paid app over an ad-supported free one. If I wanted the latter, there are no shortage of options. I wonder how Whatsapp spells out the usage of personal data in their ToS.

pigscantfly 13y ago
I can certainly see how Facebook could monetize Whatsapp's data, but surely it isn't legal for them to retroactively change the ToS and examine the data, right?
- luka-birsa 13y ago
  I am quite certain that they are not allowed to retroactively change the ToS and access the data legaly. That doesn't mean that they won't. Perhaps they will just do it behind the curtains, offering better Facebook Friend links.
- stingraycharles 13y ago
  Most ToS state that their terms are subject to change. I do not know whether or not a company has to explicitly state that the terms provided are perpetual, but there are lots of examples of companies changing their ToS retroactively. For example: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/09/google-on-chrome-eula-controversy-our-bad-well-change-it/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/09/google-on-chrome-... http://boardingarea.com/viewfromthewing/2012/10/10/united-makes-another-retroactive-change-to-bonus-terms-and-conditions/ http://boardingarea.com/viewfromthewing/2012/10/10/united-ma... And here is an interesting paper about retroactive lawmaking by the government: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_Weienonline.pdf http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_Weie...
- ejain 13y ago
  Pretty much all ToS have a clause that states that the terms can change any time. Where services differ is whether they'll provide you with advance notice (or if you're expected to check for changes yourself!), and if you are able to close your account and have your data removed (I believe this is required in the EU). Looking at http://www.whatsapp.com/legal/ http://www.whatsapp.com/legal/, it appears that WhatsApp falls into the "we can change our terms without letting you know" category, and I don't see anything about their data retention policy :-(
netcan 13y ago
'I prefer a paid app over an ad-supported free one' This gets mentioned a lot. I don't quite understand the logic. Say WhatsApp cost users $3.99, when Facebook buys them for 5 billion $3.99s what difference does it make? Facebook gets 3990 messages, a list of people you know, groups and whatever else. They can now add those to their vast collection of stuff they know about you, Facebook profile or not. What do the $3.99 payment or the 'one weird trick to improve your health' ads have to do with any of this? I don't get it.
- stingraycharles 13y ago
  It is implied that when you pay, you are the customer, and when it's ad-supported you're the product instead. In this case, however, you paid for the Whatsapp app, but with Facebook acquiring Whatsapp you'll also pay with your personal data.
  - amirmc 13y ago
    > "It is implied that when you pay, you are the customer, and when it's ad-supported you're the product instead." This meme needs to die. It implies a dividing line where none exists. There is absolutely no reason why you can't end up being both a paying user of a product and have data about you sold on, aggregated etc. If a company can find a way to get paid twice, why wouldn't they do so?
    - enscr 13y ago
      The meme maybe a cliche but it's true. For a for-profit company, there are 4 outcomes : - Paid without ads : Whatsapp till now. Ideal for personal privacy - Paid with ads : Bad for users. If whatsapp was doing this, it won't stay hidden for long. The breadcrumbs of your data will lead to whatsapp's door. - Free without ads : Bad for company - Free with ads : Facebook. Bad for some, good for others. Point being, respectable companies that are in for the long run will probably have a clearly defined business plan i.e. sell the product to the user or sell ads to the user. If it's doing both, it becomes evident.
kevcampb 13y ago
Why not read the ToS? It's pretty clear and very user friendly. The short version - they don't store your data, and there is no right for Facebook to get that data historically. That's not to say they can't change it in future, but I'm sure if they do there will be a massive exodus from the network. And to further clarify on your comment - whatsapp is a paid for app, not advert supported. They only charge the iPhone users, however. Cost of the app is $1 for iPhone. Suspect android users would never touch it, as they don't have payment details set up on Google Play's store.
- seabee 13y ago
  The Android version is free for one year only.
  - kevcampb 13y ago
    And it seems that they very rarely collect those fees, if at all. I've certainly had my android install over one year, and no request for payment. See plenty of other similar reports online. Suspect getting users to pay $1 is going to be a real pain, not for the cost, but for the convenience factor.
    - JTon 13y ago
      You say rarely, but I've never heard of any accounts of them collecting the fee. Do you know if they have?
      - shawabawa3 13y ago
        In the UK, me and at least 3 of my friends have had to pay after a year. Not sure if anyone I know has not had to pay after a year
        JTon 13y ago
        What when it asks you to pay? Are you completely locked out until the transactions complete? or some variant (i.e. can receive msgs but can't send)

chatman 13y ago

Is there a legal way to stop Whatsapp from sharing my address book with Facebook?

brandnewlow 13y ago
Why do you think Facebook just paid $19b for them?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
enscr 13y ago
Valid point. I hope a lawyer can weigh in.
steveklabnik 13y ago
http://www.whatsapp.com/legal/ http://www.whatsapp.com/legal/ "In the Event of Merger, Sale, or Bankruptcy" You already gave them the right to share the information. (IANAL)

koosa 13y ago

Immediately after striking Facebook-WattsApp deal, Koum had mentioned in one of his tweets that users' privacy and security is their top concern and I hope he sticks to his guns.

antr 13y ago
He just sold WhatsApp to a company that he has no control over. His word is no good over this decision.
- amirmc 13y ago
  He's joining the Board of Directors, so he does have much more control than most.
  - enscr 13y ago
    Sure he'll get a chair but that's where it stops. FB, the company is about targeted advertisements based on your profile, activity etc. There's no reason why they won't do that with Whatsapp. They have most definitely not paid $19 billion to get only 99 cent revenue every year. They perhaps are eyeing for much more per user.
    - jp555 13y ago
      With over 400 million active monthly users, that would be much closer to $399,000,000 than $0.99 every year. WhatsApp has nearly twice the active users as Twitter, and many more than Skype, LinkedIn, Instagram, and even Angry Birds. Not only that, WhatsApp has a user:employee ratio of over 8,000,000:1. That is quite remarkable, over 8x the users per employee than Youtube. There is much more value in WhatsApp for FB than just eyeballs.
    - sirkneeland 13y ago
      One element of corporate strategy is that there is strategic value not simply in having [acquired company X] but also having kept it out of competitors' hands. Facebook owning it means Google, Apple, Microsoft etc don't. Facebook likes that.

yuhong 13y ago

This is why I asked about what happened to Mark Zuckerberg since the early days of Facebook regarding privacy in a Reddit AMA.

sirkneeland 13y ago
$200 billion happened to him, that's what...
- yuhong 13y ago
  What do you mean?

kevcampb 13y ago

Why would any privacy advocate want to block this deal? I can only see this deal being beneficial for privacy in the long run. Facebook are unable to collect data from the service without changing the ToS, which will likely cause a user exodus. It's going to put such a huge unrecoverable dent in Facebook's finances that it will be a significant long term disadvantage to them. If you are a privacy advocate, wait until the deal completes and then jump ship and bring your friends with you.

x3c 13y ago
You overestimate an average user's privacy concerns.
Eye_of_Mordor 13y ago
How is this good for privacy if Facebook's business model is selling personal information for financial gain? They could change the ToS anytime and sell all your personal information (several years of messages, photos, video) next day. Also, they could pass this all to the government for a nice pile of cash (without needing to change the ToS).
- kevcampb 13y ago
  They cannot change the ToS to sell all of your personal information as their ToS specifically states they do not store or archive that information. Passing it to the government is another matter...
amirmc 13y ago
> "... without changing the ToS, which will likely cause a user exodus." How many people are even aware of what the ToS says? I don't recall a mass exodus from Google when they merged their privacy policies so I don't expect to see it here (for similar reasons - where would they go?). Edit: > "... then jump ship and bring your friends with you." You make it sound like this is easy. It isn't. That's why networks have value and are hard to build.
- Zikes 13y ago

balladeer 13y ago

I just hope WhatsApp doesn't hand over deleted accounts' data to Facebook!