5 ms·

The article includes a link where the CEO posts some rebuttal: https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/whisper-ten-answers-oct-24/Setting+The+Record+Straight.htm htt

The article includes a link where the CEO posts some rebuttal: https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/whisper-ten-answers-oct-24/Setting+The+Record+Straight.htm https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/whisper-ten-answers-oct-2... . > We then fuzz the location on the server. Why not fuzz it on the device, before sending to the server? > All data is stored in the United States, and has always been. Why not just amend your Privacy Policy to state that data is only stored in the United States? Anything less, such as this nonbinding account of what you've historically done, strikes me as hand-waving and not fully above-board. It's like you acknowledge this is a legitimate concern, decline to formally commit to anything, but tell people a truth (or at least true at this moment) you think they want to hear, hoping they'll feel like the concern was resolved.

jackhammer 12y ago
Why not fuzz it on the device, before sending to the server? Now that is a legitimate question. Although, fuzzing it on the server is better than not fuzzing it at all. Why not just amend your Privacy Policy to state that data is only stored in the United States? Actually Whisper did the opposite, amend their privacy policy so that data can be stored outside of the US, but their new ToS are not active yet. I think, what he is saying is basically just: "We have content moderators in the Philippines. The Guardian is acting like we keep that secret, but here are 5 media articles where we talked about that ourselves. It is also not against our ToS. The provision that the Guardian is referencing is about servers.". I must say, that it really looks like the Guardian article was somewhat sensationalist. Yes whisper is "tracking" it's users by sending location data to the server, but that is obvious since that is an integral part of the app.
- joosters 12y ago
  Now that is a legitimate question. Although, fuzzing it on the server is better than not fuzzing it at all. It might be worse, because it gives a false sense of security. People might be swayed into using the service and not realise the risk.
- scintill76 12y ago
  > Actually Whisper did the opposite, amend their privacy policy so that data can be stored outside of the US True, I neglected this. Guardian points out (perhaps too imprecisely) that they changed the ToS to include storing data in other countries, and their response is essentially, "Calm down, right now we're only in the US." They've obviously made a deliberate move to open the door to storing data somewhere other than the US, but expect everyone to be reassured that they haven't actually walked through the door yet. Like the server-side location fuzzing, it's an unverifiable promise of security/privacy, not actual security and privacy. > their new ToS are not active yet. How not? http://whisper.sh/privacy http://whisper.sh/privacy , dated 13 October, has the "other countries" clause, and says "Any changes become effective when we post them on the Site." > that is obvious since that is an integral part of the app. I have to admit, I'm also a bit surprised that this, of all privacy issues, is blowing up so much. Still, I support raising awareness of privacy, and I'm getting sketchy vibes from Whisper's damage control, so that I wonder if they have more to hide or something.
  - jackhammer 12y ago
    > How not? http://whisper.sh/privacy http://whisper.sh/privacy , dated 13 October, has the "other countries" clause, and says "Any changes become effective when we post them on the Site." I don't know, I got my information from this Guardian article: "These new terms, which were posted on Whisper’s website on 13 October, come into effect on 12 November." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/16/-sp-whisper-privacy-policy-terms-of-service http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/16/-sp-whisper-pri... Maybe the website and app have different ToS?
    - scintill76 12y ago
      Thanks. I guess this is based on "The new Terms will become effective thirty (30) days after we post the notice on our Site."[0] in the Terms, which also seem to incorporate the Privacy Policy I linked, which is stated to take effect immediately. I don't know which statement about effective date takes precedence (another sign of sketchiness/sloppiness?), but at least I know what you and the Guardian are talking about. [0] http://whisper.sh/terms http://whisper.sh/terms
mahyarm 12y ago
> Why not fuzz it on the device, before sending to the server? Because you can change your fuzz algo instantly vs. waiting for users to download updates. Your not allowed to push code without review with iOS apps, so you couldn't send an updated lua script for example like you could with android. For screw ups although they could of just fuzzed it further when they received it from the user on the server. These apps are curtain-level privacy, mostly meant to keep you private from your social circle. Expecting any more without it being a pain in the ass would be a UX revolution.
- scintill76 12y ago
  > These apps are curtain-level privacy, mostly meant to keep you private from your social circle. Expecting any more without it being a pain in the ass would be a UX revolution. True. I guess somehow saying "If you want real security, use PGP and only talk to people you know and trust" just isn't as good for their bottom line, or as fun/useful for their users. I would still consider it worthwhile for us to point this stuff out, so that people who care about it can inform themselves from somewhere other than a CEO whose company depends on making money off of them.

jackhammer 12y ago

Why not fuzz it on the device, before sending to the server? Now that is a legitimate question. Although, fuzzing it on the server is better than not fuzzing it at all. Why not just amend your Privacy Policy to state that data is only stored in the United States? Actually Whisper did the opposite, amend their privacy policy so that data can be stored outside of the US, but their new ToS are not active yet. I think, what he is saying is basically just: "We have content moderators in the Philippines. The Guardian is acting like we keep that secret, but here are 5 media articles where we talked about that ourselves. It is also not against our ToS. The provision that the Guardian is referencing is about servers.". I must say, that it really looks like the Guardian article was somewhat sensationalist. Yes whisper is "tracking" it's users by sending location data to the server, but that is obvious since that is an integral part of the app.

joosters 12y ago
Now that is a legitimate question. Although, fuzzing it on the server is better than not fuzzing it at all. It might be worse, because it gives a false sense of security. People might be swayed into using the service and not realise the risk.
scintill76 12y ago
> Actually Whisper did the opposite, amend their privacy policy so that data can be stored outside of the US True, I neglected this. Guardian points out (perhaps too imprecisely) that they changed the ToS to include storing data in other countries, and their response is essentially, "Calm down, right now we're only in the US." They've obviously made a deliberate move to open the door to storing data somewhere other than the US, but expect everyone to be reassured that they haven't actually walked through the door yet. Like the server-side location fuzzing, it's an unverifiable promise of security/privacy, not actual security and privacy. > their new ToS are not active yet. How not? http://whisper.sh/privacy http://whisper.sh/privacy , dated 13 October, has the "other countries" clause, and says "Any changes become effective when we post them on the Site." > that is obvious since that is an integral part of the app. I have to admit, I'm also a bit surprised that this, of all privacy issues, is blowing up so much. Still, I support raising awareness of privacy, and I'm getting sketchy vibes from Whisper's damage control, so that I wonder if they have more to hide or something.
- jackhammer 12y ago
  > How not? http://whisper.sh/privacy http://whisper.sh/privacy , dated 13 October, has the "other countries" clause, and says "Any changes become effective when we post them on the Site." I don't know, I got my information from this Guardian article: "These new terms, which were posted on Whisper’s website on 13 October, come into effect on 12 November." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/16/-sp-whisper-privacy-policy-terms-of-service http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/16/-sp-whisper-pri... Maybe the website and app have different ToS?
  - scintill76 12y ago
    Thanks. I guess this is based on "The new Terms will become effective thirty (30) days after we post the notice on our Site."[0] in the Terms, which also seem to incorporate the Privacy Policy I linked, which is stated to take effect immediately. I don't know which statement about effective date takes precedence (another sign of sketchiness/sloppiness?), but at least I know what you and the Guardian are talking about. [0] http://whisper.sh/terms http://whisper.sh/terms

mahyarm 12y ago

> Why not fuzz it on the device, before sending to the server? Because you can change your fuzz algo instantly vs. waiting for users to download updates. Your not allowed to push code without review with iOS apps, so you couldn't send an updated lua script for example like you could with android. For screw ups although they could of just fuzzed it further when they received it from the user on the server. These apps are curtain-level privacy, mostly meant to keep you private from your social circle. Expecting any more without it being a pain in the ass would be a UX revolution.

scintill76 12y ago
> These apps are curtain-level privacy, mostly meant to keep you private from your social circle. Expecting any more without it being a pain in the ass would be a UX revolution. True. I guess somehow saying "If you want real security, use PGP and only talk to people you know and trust" just isn't as good for their bottom line, or as fun/useful for their users. I would still consider it worthwhile for us to point this stuff out, so that people who care about it can inform themselves from somewhere other than a CEO whose company depends on making money off of them.