> Lenses are generated on the device. They're not uploaded to Snapchat servers.

Context is very important when you're quoting people: "... and if they've been "good" data miners..."

And regardless of whether or not a filter is generated on device, facial data is being used, and so I'm weary that it could be sent to a server. If it's not, fine, but that's subject to change.

> From the support site: "Snapchat servers are designed to automatically delete Snaps after they've been viewed by all recipients."

So when authorities get involved, I'm sure Snap says "sorry, can't do anything for you"?

> So when authorities get involved, I'm sure Snap says "sorry, can't do anything for you"?

Why not? Obviously it's nonfree software so neither of us really know, but the alternative is that they're simply lying. Maybe they are, but that sounds like a ticking time bomb that would destroy them when it gets out. And it would absolutely get out, especially if they try to monetize it as an above poster suggested.

I wouldn't consider it a ticking time bomb. They provide a (false) guarantee to the end user that other users won't be able to capture whatever you sent beyond the time given for them to view it. (This is false because anyone can take a picture of their phone's screen.) Users would understand the very reasonable difference between users having general access to this "expired" data vs. the police. Most people should expect that the police have special privileges in this case, and I don't think there'd be any backlash if this became broader knowledge. Their promise to their users is to provide them with the secrecy of a "secret note", not government proof secure encrypted messaging.

The number I've seen around is that Snap keeps messages on it's servers for two weeks for the authorities(presumably that's also their timeout for a user to download the image).