The difference in this particular case is that Whatsapp made an explicit promise that they would not start sharing their data.
Respect for your privacy is coded into our DNA, and we built WhatsApp around the goal of knowing as little about you as possible: You don't have to give us your name and we don't ask for your email address. We don’t know your birthday. We don’t know your home address. We don’t know where you work. We don’t know your likes, what you search for on the internet or collect your GPS location. None of that data has ever been collected and stored by WhatsApp, and we really have no plans to change that.
If partnering with Facebook meant that we had to change our values, we wouldn’t have done it. Instead, we are forming a partnership that would allow us to continue operating independently and autonomously. Our fundamental values and beliefs will not change. Our principles will not change. Everything that has made WhatsApp the leader in personal messaging will still be in place. Speculation to the contrary isn’t just baseless and unfounded, it’s irresponsible. It has the effect of scaring people into thinking we’re suddenly collecting all kinds of new data. That’s just not true, and it’s important to us that you know that.
Make no mistake: our future partnership with Facebook will not compromise the vision that brought us to this point. Our focus remains on delivering the promise of WhatsApp far and wide, so that people around the world have the freedom to speak their mind without fear.
So maybe EU law is already doing what you say it should do. :)
This already bit WhatsApp when they tried to ban users for using alternative clients. A German court ruled while they may block those alternative clients, banning the user is unexpected because most other services don't have that kind of policy on alternative clients.
So they could have still kept that policy but they would have to make it unambiguously clear and draw attention to it outside the ToS or EULA because it's something users wouldn't expect from that kind of service.
They "trust me"
Dumb fucks
/ https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg /
That said:
> The only question is how many times can this be done.
Seems like German courts says it stops here.
OTOH today I read a 10 minute article on an unrelated site about loneliness. When I got to the end of the article an in page popup appeared that said something along the lines of "Liked by 9571 people including your friend John Smith".
I was extremely creeped out. What right does FB have for knowing that I read some article on an unrelated website?
I immediately installed Ublock Origin, blocked facebook.com and messenger.com. My plan is to delete all my cookies and run a separate chrome profile for facebook. Not sure I'll be able to keep the discipline.
Yes I know Chrome saves some of the same data but you can optionally encrypt it and Google at least claims they aren't using for ads https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/privacy/
On the other hand Google's other services like analytics are probably tracking me but so far they haven't been as creepy.
The added friction of signing in every time to check Facebook has had the added benefit of stopping me visiting Facebook unconsciously. The amount of free time clawed back has been substantial!
And that is creepy, I think, and one reason I have all the good adblockers and tracking blockers and cookie cleaners that GP mentions installed, too.
Next, there is no obvious relationship between the site and FB - it's some random article on some random other site, say the NY Times, on some random, say potentially embarrassing topic. However, there's a FB "like" button, or some other tracker.
Now, the site might just get some ID with demographic data (and hobbies and what have you). But FB now knows that you read that article (how could it have told you, otherwise, that John Smith read it?). That might not be a surprise to you, having some knowledge in the industry, but I submit that many if not most people find it both surprising and creepy.
Next, your argument seems to be that with some more education people would not find it surprising, and neither creepy, because adtech is so well behaved and under strict guidelines and "no evil" and all. So, at that point we'll just have to disagree.
But I'd like to better understand where you're coming from, because personally, I wouldn't be bothered by the relationship between the site and FB while I was logged into FB. If FB's algorithm knows I visited a specific site and uses that to improve the relevancy of what is shown to me in my feed, then everyone benefits. Help me understand what's creepy here?
Sure, they could potentially provide you with better service by spying on you 100% of the time. Would you accept that trade off?
I'm curious why is FB knowing every site I visit (or every site that has FB related analytics/ads/comments/like buttons/etc) embedded not creepy to you?
I get that when I visit the GAP or Target or Walmart there are security cameras. I get that they could use that info to decide how to better arrange the store. I get that they could even do something like notice what I'm looking at, put displays on the aisles and beam useful help/ads at me (I see you're looking at diapers, maybe you'd like some wet tissue on aisle 3)
But I'd find it creepy if their surveillance extended outside their store. I'd find it creepy if they could partner with every security camera with every other store. I look at shoes at Ecco an get a message from Walmart "We noticed you looking at shoes. We have lots of shoes on sale!" or "We saw you looked at jackets at Nordstroms. Your friend liked that green one you looked at".
Why is that any less creepy when I visit non-FB websites?
I'd be interested to see the political pressure it would create. I think the network is strong enough that people won't switch to other apps instantly and there would be a pretty big "just gimme back my WA" outcry which politicians would probably need to respond to.
Obviously the Datenschutzbeauftragte are theoretically independent but I'm sure they'd feel the heat. At least I'd be interested in seeing this play out if a law is being discussed. It won't ever happen but I have a feeling people would want WA enough that it could theoretically be used as a strategy.
Indeed being German I can say this is true for Germany because of the experiences with two dictatorships on German ground in the 20th century - the last one ending only about 26 years ago. Many people living in the GDR that were under supervision by the Stasi (often without knowing) have read the Stasi file (if it exists) and know what details have been recorded about their lifes and what kind of kompromat could in principle be derived from it.
The government is not asking you if you are a member of a religious community that has not choosen to use that service.
I trust my government with my data (well, mostly) because if it abuses that trust, I know that I and my fellow citizens can vote it out of power. We have no such control over FB.
Afaik you can enter whatever you want on the tax form, it is just used to collect membership fees/church tax on behalf of a church. Mostly part of an old deal between the state and the catholic church.
Scientology on the other hand counts more or less as an enemy of the state, stability and not something you let near children. So you need to fill out a corresponding form for specific jobs. If even half the stories of what they get up to are true that is a good thing.
Here's a report from the EU commission about why the US constitutional/legal protection is much less than the EU (and hence German) equivalent:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/519215/IPOL_STU%282015%29519215_EN.pdf
If you're not in the USA or Canada, and use Facebook, your agreement is with Facebook Ireland Ltd, and bound by Irish, and European, data protection law.
A Facebook user in India has EU data protection rights.
* chats not end-to-end encrypted by default (only secure chats), so clear text is on their servers
* group chats can't be secure chats
* the crypto is somewhat unconventional. While the developers had their reasons (constraints of mobile platforms), and no exploit has been found so far, AFAIK, any self-rolled crypto is a bit of a red flag to cryptographers.
* I have no reason to distrust Pavel Durov or his motives, but I am somewhat skeptical of services based in Russia (also, just to be clear, of services based in the USA or other five eyes).
To me, Wire might be the best of both worlds (as I've said in another post in this thread, and BTW I am not connected to them in any way):
Signal protocol; based in Switzerland; smartphone, desktop and web client; free; text and voice chat and group chat; open source (GPLv3, and on github); signup with phone number or email.
the desktop client was not encrypted at all last i checked, only the mobile client.
signal is e2e encrypted, it's in a completely different ballpark
Saying "users don't have to use us" after there's already a massive, massive installed base is ridiculous and Facebook knows it. If it were just as easy as switching to another messaging service they NEVER would've paid that much money for Whatsapp. It brings almost nothing unique to the table outside of it's user base/momentum.
Sharing data is what these companies do. The only way to keep your data safe is to use open-source, e2e systems.
Even if you trust any company today, there's no reason you can trust said company tomorrow.
Which would of course limit what they can do with it. And I suspect it's commerical use, not consolidating, that Facebook are more concerned about. :)
The latter collect your data and sell it to third parties. The former collect your data, keep it a tightly-guarded secret, do not sell it to anyone, and use it to make their own product more profitable.
I think the difference is important to keep in mind.
My hope is that the increasing outrage will drive users to one of the secure messaging applications.
Disclaimer: I have neither a Facebook nor a WhatsApp account.