6 ms·

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 u

by 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)

by enscr 13y ago

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)