WhatsApp: Share your data with Facebook, or we'll make our own app useless to you WhatsApp users who refuse to accept its new privacy policy will slowly but surely be cut off from the chat app, the social network has confirmed. In January, WhatsApp users were told if they wanted to keep using the software, they must agree to an updated fine print that, among other things, allows their data to be passed onto …
You underestimate teenagers. As I wrote back in July of 2018:
"My eldest Niece reports that comp-sci students at her Uni implemented a "students only" UUCP network over the existing school network a couple years ago. It's mostly used for email, small file transfer, and a private Usenet hierarchy. Seems the thirty-somethings who are supposedly the administrators never learned UUCP and have no idea that what they are doing even exists. No, I'm not naming the Uni ... but apparently they are connected to other schools, world-wide, and the PTB are none the wiser. To get around draconian filters, they even have a couple links that are dial-up, over POTS, if you can believe it. Good for them! :-)"
> You underestimate teenagers.
Might be, yet many if not most teenagers aren't computer science students (or even university students)... "Normal" teenagers haven't the slightest clue what "Usenet" was/is, but that's besides the point anyway, since the whole point is to be "connected" to the others and that means they'll use what their friends use.
Most of the kids on the Niece's clandestine Uni system aren't comp sci majors, either. In fact, the Niece has just finished her pre-vet work, and been accepted to two Vet schools, her choice of either Madison or Davis.
"Normal" teenagers knew what Usenet was before AOL became a Wall Street & Media darling. Easy access to unlimited free porn will do that to a kid who is dying of hormone poisoning. BBSes with free read-only Usenet access couldn't get lines installed fast enough ...
But whatever. Convince the kids that their parents/teachers don't use or understand Usenet/IRC/email and the kids will flock to it.
> they just don't see this as the issue it is.
Sure. Most people already gave Facebook all their data, so this changes nothing for them, their WhatsApp will keep working like before.
Others will claim that given that X or Y are still on WhatsApp, they have to keep using it too, at any cost, it's a life-and-death situation.
I block Facebook on my home network.
My daughter came to visit. She claimed my Wi-Fi was broken, because she couldn't get to Instagram or send a WhatsApp message... I told her, I block Facebook...
"But, this is Instagram!"
"Yes, Facebook Instagram."
"And WhatsApp!"
"Yes, Facebook WhatsApp."
Long silence.
She now uses Signal, but still uses Instagram.
The more of this kind of stuff that "the news" reports on, the more folks that I know are moving back to making telephone calls. And suddenly remembering how easy it is to communicate with actual friends, as opposed to maintaining several accounts with psudo-friends they've never met, and never will meet.
You didn't hear it from me, but it took 'em long enough ...
The problem with WhatsApp is that you're giving away OTHER people's details without their permission. I'm not sure if this doesn't mean that organisations using it are already breaking GDPR.
The first things WhatsApp does is copy your address book wholesale to their servers (read: with contact details that others have entrusted you with). Other apps such as Signal work with hashes that are deleted off the server after matching but no, the address book is the exact trophy that Zuck is after so there's no way in hell he's going to give that up.
Remember, this is the guy that had no problem with trying to blackmail a whole country.
I really, really hope that at some point someone will hack the living daylights out of his personal details and make it all public. After all, if he can grab that off his users it's only fair they get all of his.
Yes, under EU GDPR this is expressly illegal. No ifs or buts, it's is expressly illegal unless Faecesborg and all it's various bits gets the informed consent of EVERY person who's personal information is being hoovered.
Asking the person who's handing it over isn't enough - even if they were being asked (their not, they're being coerced). Only the data subject can give that consent.
It's not like GDPR is some sort of secret - even Faecesborg must have heard of it by now. So I see this as either a last ditch "grab everything while we can" like it's the Debenhams closing down sale - or it's them deliberately goading the EU authorities in a "go on, dare you" way on the basis that they (and their user base) are more powerful than the EU authorities. On that, if the EU decided on the nuclear option, there are others ready to step up and fill the void.
But at least now I have a good excuse if someone tells me that I "must" use Whatsapp - I'll simply tell them that it's illegal to use, and BTW "if you ask again I'll report you to the ICO for breaking privacy regulations" (which we do still have in the UK ... for now).
With luck the same will happen with the FB app as well and it will finally fall over and sink into the foetid swamp it crawled out of.
"as it erases your message history, removes you from all of your WhatsApp groups, and deletes your WhatsApp backups,"
Yeah! I really believe that feacebook will dump anything of potential value to them.
If you read between the lines, it's pretty clear that Facebook already has a copy of most of this information. Also, as you quote, requesting deletion removes the copy on What'sApp.
Since most of their "privacy" functions were implement with a dark design pattern were the opt-out happens after they have already slurped up and transferred a users info to FB and other third parties, the opt-out only really stops future transfers of message content and new social graph connections. It gets all of those anyway unless everyone else you know also opt's out.
So you are right, Zuck's not giving up anything he needs on this.
The real threat is the fact that 85% of those asked have opted out, which will pretty much dispel the myth that "users don't care about privacy" they have worked so hard to sell over the years.
Now we just need to get bill in front of those 85% so we can vote in a universal opt-in only law so we don't have to constantly be checking which boxes are ticked.
"The real threat is the fact that 85% of those asked have opted out, which will pretty much dispel the myth that "users don't care about privacy" they have worked so hard to sell over the years."
Quite.
And watching Zuck squirm in front of Congress (from memory, April 2018??) when someone asked why couldn't the slurping be "off by default, enabled on request" was quite enlightening too.
Maybe someone needs to remind him. Unexpectedly it looks like Biden's team might be supportive of that idea.
Whatsapp was an independent messaging service. And a better one then just about anything else out there at the time. That's why it became hugely popular.
No one asked for them to be bought by Facebook. Nobody asked for Facebook to start slurping their data from Whatsapp even when they had previou8sly nothing to do with Facebook.
The number of people I know using Whatsapp has steadily dwindled since the takeover. But this new change will simply see me also dropping away and forcing my mother/relatives/friends to download Signal if they want to message me beyond a simple SMS.
Bye bye Whatsapp. You were great once upon a time...
Friends who haven’t moved to signal or telegram now have to rely on SMS to contact me now, been on What’s App since the early days back when UK networks charged for every text message, but have been reducing use of WA since it was assimilated by the Zuckerborg, and this latest change was enough to make me expel it forever.
Sad that the UK regulators are so inactive in this area, I guess the rights of citizens are once again secondary to the interests of big business. It is well past time that the creepy Facebook stalking was reigned in and more closely controlled, especially in the case of those of us who have never had and never want a Facebook account.
"though not the contents of encrypted messages and calls"
Ah, that's only for now, but in time, this will come "by accident" if it is ever noticed. Really, they will sell messages contents.
Whatsapp is fucked as heck, now, the Zuck company needs to make money out of the 16 Billion USD they've paid for it.
Come on, there is no free meal !
I've uninstalled all of it, installed Signal and Telegram instead.
It's not like I am in the defense industry, but really, this app is like posting in the public.
Not even secure enough to talk with your GF.
I never understand when articles say things like 'contact data is copied'. How does that work, legally? I mean if I am your contact and they slurp your contact information then isn't that also personal information about me? So don't they need my consent, as well as yours, to even begin to think about slurping that data?
It's not just the contact info that Facebook is selling to anybody with enough loose change, it's also the RELATIONSHIPS between all that contact info. Neither I, nor my friend, have access to all that. Only Facebook does.
Well, to be perfectly accurate, I do not now, and never have had a Facebook account. I have never even logged onto any of their sites. Anything they have on me has been slurped without anything even remotely resembling consent.
Yes, and unless you're a loner with only one or two contacts you only speak to once a year, Facebook can triangulate enough data about you to create a full profile: Job, personal life, interests, your picture, everything.
You definitely don't need to have an account (and obviously even less give any consent) for Facebook to sell your full curriculum to anybody interested...
re: "You definitely don't need to have [a FB] account"
It looks like fecebook, in addition to whatever accounts individuals make themselves, has a slew of accounts it generates based on names it acquired (from phone book listings? other public sources?). One assumes this is bait, so anyone looking for Kris Kringle will find the generic generated page and interact with that (i.e., feed the feceborg more data) even if Kringle has not actually created a FB page. Point being that even if you avoid FB like the plague that it it, they may still be getting some traces of info on you if an auto-generated page with your name on it exists.
"unless you're a loner with only one or two contacts you only speak to once a year"
Hi.
Meanwhile, does El Reg still have the iconettes for FaceBook, Twitter, etc on most pages? Obviously lots of other sites do even if El Reg has done the decent thing. And what info can be slurped courtesy of those iconettes?
C'mon El Reg. Your legal eagle journos and many of your readers are ahead of the game here, help them out a bit.
Is the mere act of asking for someone's contact list akin to phishing?
Is this any different to the list of contacts that Google (other data slurpers are available) build from the headers of messages to/from G-Mail users? Heaven knows how much they then abstract from the message bodies - even if it isn't used for advertising (or whatever the current weasle words say).
Is there likely to be ANYTHING in a social media contacts list that isn't, in some way, already in the wild?
A non-user wants to know.
Unless El Reg policy has improved dramatically, or unless visitors have taken explicit action of their own to block Facebook links from El Reg's site, then no one here has the option to be a "non-user". Same at many other sites.
Just look up "shadow profile" and the anti-social network of interest.
So don't they need my consent, as well as yours, to even begin to think about slurping that data?
Yes, Faecesborg (and their various tentacles) must have your informed consent to legally hold and process your personal information - even if it's only your name. The person interacting with Faecesborg cannot give that consent even if they were asked for it - which they most definitely aren't being.
As I wrote above, I have a feeling that they are given the EU authorities the middle finger and effectively shouting "go on then, I don't think you've got the balls". It'll take many years (see how long Max Schrems has been at it), but given FB cannot possibly have any defence (even if it were a defence) of ignorance of GDPR, and it's clearly not accidental (in the way that Google's slurping of WiFi data was "accidental"), then eventually it's going to come down on FB like a ... 4% of global turnover fine.
I blame Google for this mess!
If they had just stuck with GTalk and kept it on jabber/XMPP and the servers open we could be living a messaging nirvana! They could have added SMS/MMS, GPhotos chat, GDocs comments, and what not to the steam. Third parties could have built their own clients and Google would have been shielded for monopoly accusations.
But instead here we are bickering over which messenger to use if we want to stay friends!
> I rather think most people under 40 or so think that.
Although I hit 40 last century I kind of agree, I hate phone calls too, even when they are legit they always happen at the most inappropriate moment.
That doesn't mean I use "social" media: Email is just fine to keep in touch with distant friends/family. Unfortunately email is apparently horribly dated and younger people wouldn't be seen dead using something that corny in their private life...
Oh well, I'm an old fogy. Get off my lawn already!
"That's why answering machines were invented back in the 1930s. Frankly, I find a stand-alone answering machine to be more useful than any voice-mail system I've ever seen, at least for home/small business use."
But for one problem: capacity. No answering machine I've ever encountered allows for easy downloading of messages so that the memory can be cleaned up for new messages. Too often, I hit answering machines and voice mails that are full and useless. The only solution I've been able to come up with is to make a Linux box that can use vgetty (I've tried using Pis, but supported USB voice modems are becoming more difficult to find and harder to support as vgetty isn't well-maintained anymore--plus there's the whole flash wear-and-tear issue).
> That's why answering machines were invented back in the 1930s
But that defeats the purpose of calling, doesn't it. We're back at a time-shifted medium where you alternatively leave stand-alone messages; Can as well use email for that, isn't it.
(For the record I obviously do have an answering machine. Stand-alone, just besides my phones, running 24/7)
Where are you ? If in Europe, or even the UK for now, then tell your boss he's breaking the law and if he persists you'll report him. If you're sacked for it, then that's straight to the tribunal for a guaranteed win for unfair dismissal.
Of course, to that does need a considerable level of self assertiveness and confidence - not to mention the ability to withstand being unemployed (potentially for a while given the current situation) so I would understand if you weren't brave enough to do it.
Short answer: Telegram is arguably less secure than Signal but is better for group chat. Discord seems to be displacing Telegram as the group chat platform of choice, however, based on my personal anecdotal experience. I have no insight into the relative security of Discord.
So, what it boils down to, is that, as El Presidente of Gnome Country, Do-Laa the First, the Last, and Only, I have conversations with my psychiatrist, while I have befriended on Fb Satan and Hitler, and then my boss will find out about it. ... Can't be bothered, it's time anyway the idiot knows what I think about him. What's wrong with honesty?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
