Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Ordered to Stop Collecting Data on WhatsApp Users in Germany

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 441 posts

Re: Facebook Ordered to Stop Collecting Data on WhatsApp Users in Germany

#311

Post by sgift »

danarmak wrote: post #104
wsy wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

German law requires to use opt-in, i.e. the default setting of agreements to transfer data to other parties must be 'no' (or the checkbox must be empty). That way, it is very easy to make sure there is explicit consent to transfer of data, and the service provider can't hide it in the TOS. Of course, the service provider is also free to limit or close its services to users that do not consent. That is actually what t…

I don't think this is very useful in most cases. Suppose a service requires data transmission to operate, either intrinsically, or it just chooses to require it. It displays a checkbox, unchecked by default, and unless the user checks it, the service isn't going to work; checking the checkbox is functionally equivalent to the "I Agree" TOS button. I expect users will check the checkbox without reading any explanation…

German data law is very strict, so yes, it is useful:

- You can only take as much as you need

- You cannot ask for data for one thing and use it for another

- You have to clearly state what data you will use for what purpose

- The opt-in has to be distinct from other opt-ins (so, 100 pages of EULA and then a checkbox "I accept" doesn't cut it)

The only problem here is that the penalities for breaking the data protection laws aren't very high .. I'd like to see percentages of a companies revenue.

Re: Facebook Ordered to Stop Collecting Data on WhatsApp Users in Germany

#312

Post by CaptSpify »

zigzigzag wrote: post #284
Gracana wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I give someone money, it is their money and they can do what they want with it, it does not matter to me. If I give someone information about myself, it's still connected to me, but now it's under their control. They can use it to exploit or harm me, and so can anyone they sell it to, or anyone who steals it. It's that indeterminate potential for future abuse that makes it important. That's why we consider it diff…

I hate to break it to you, but when you make a payment online, the recipient learns your legal name, probably a billing address i.e. where you live, and you probably don't even think about it. I do see a lot of double standards in these discussions. People never articulate who is specifically being hurt or what the specific problem is. Instead allusions to fascist governments are made, which would be fine, if these c…

and who do you think gives that data to the government?

Re: Facebook Ordered to Stop Collecting Data on WhatsApp Users in Germany

#313

Post by type0 »

zigzigzag wrote: post #284
Gracana wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I give someone money, it is their money and they can do what they want with it, it does not matter to me. If I give someone information about myself, it's still connected to me, but now it's under their control. They can use it to exploit or harm me, and so can anyone they sell it to, or anyone who steals it. It's that indeterminate potential for future abuse that makes it important. That's why we consider it diff…

I hate to break it to you, but when you make a payment online, the recipient learns your legal name, probably a billing address i.e. where you live, and you probably don't even think about it. I do see a lot of double standards in these discussions. People never articulate who is specifically being hurt or what the specific problem is. Instead allusions to fascist governments are made, which would be fine, if these c…

> ... if these companies were governments. But they aren't: they have no power. If you're rightly scared about the combination of information and force, it's government surveillance that deserves the attention, not harmless chat apps.

In the meantime government surveillance agencies can piggyback just fine on information collected from fb, emails etc and can continue to spend money on even more scary surveillance tools.

I can give you personal example of harm: family member was a victim of fraud because of the leaked information online. I would argue that the existence of social media and it being promiscuous with our data makes it extremely easy for criminals.

> it's government surveillance that deserves the attention, not harmless chat apps.

Oh, but it's not harmless when it gets in wrong hands. The only precaution is to get assurance that those services don't collect your data indefinitely and more than necessary.

Re: Facebook Ordered to Stop Collecting Data on WhatsApp Users in Germany

#314

Post by fauigerzigerk »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #280
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I just think the bar for banning consenting adults from entering into an agreement should be very high, because the negative externalities of doing it too often are extremely grave as well.

Which seems to be a different argument entirely, namely one of weighing the positive externalities against the negative externalities? I guess I would agree with that. Now, there is actually precedent for banning consenting adults from sharing private information in order to ensure the survival of the democracy that is quite common in stable democracies: You are usually not allowed to prove to third parties how you v…

>Which seems to be a different argument entirely, namely one of weighing the positive externalities against the negative externalities?

Not just that, it's also about weighing the restrictions on personal freedoms against the extent of negative externalities. In some cases the protection of personal freedoms is absolute. The ban on torture is a precedent for that.

>Now, there is actually precedent for banning consenting adults from sharing private information in order to ensure the survival of the democracy [...]

It's a precedent only if it's comparable, which it isn't.

You are overstating your case. There is no reason to believe that letting an algorithm parse some of your data for clues as to what you might want to buy makes democracy fall apart.

What is likely to have an effect on democracy is when governments analyze data for political reasons. Where that happens, people will simply stop volunteering so much private information. They don't need to be banned from doing that.

Re: Facebook Ordered to Stop Collecting Data on WhatsApp Users in Germany

#315

Post by olegious »

FabHK wrote: post #223
olegious wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're logged into FB and there is a relationship between the site and FB, then why is it a surprise that the site is able to id you? And when I say "you" I don't mean "John Smith from sf working for company X" but a number with some generalized demographic data attached. There are strict pii guidelines that adtech has to follow, no one really knows who you are. FB and other adtech giants need to do a much better…

Most people, I submit, don't log out of FB, they just close that browser tab. So, basically, most people are always logged into FB. 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…

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that adtech as a whole is well behaved or cares about user experience, if it was, ad blockers wouldn't be as popular as they are. But I do think there is also an education issue where most people think that PII is being exposed that makes it sound creepier than it actually is.

Re: Facebook Ordered to Stop Collecting Data on WhatsApp Users in Germany

#316

Post by e12e »

corndoge wrote: post #114
logn wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Using the messaging service is a voluntary decision Once a critical mass uses a messaging service, it's not a completely voluntary decision, especially when there is no open standard with interoperable competing apps.

This is false. Market dominance does not transform a proprietary product into a basic utility. What I mean is that simply because a proprietary product has a large mass of users does not mean the users have the right to demand that it be regulated like a public utility.

>>> Using the messaging service is a voluntary decision >> >> Once a critical mass uses a messaging service, it's not a >> completely voluntary decision, especially when there is >> no open standard with inter-operable competing apps. > > This is false. Market dominance does not transform a > proprietary product into a basic utility. What I mean is > that simply because a proprietary product has a large > mass of users does not mean the users have the right to > demand that it be regulated like a public utility.

(Emphasis added). Messaging services are special because of network effects. The postal service, the telegraph, the phone system, the Internet are all special services.

I would argue that email should probably have some special regulation beyond SPAM - the way big players like Google and Microsoft handle email is actually a problem already - perfectly good email, from a perfectly valid domain, from an ip without any terrible history - can sometimes end up as SPAM. This in turn makes it harder for people to compete by hosting their own email, in essence market dominance prevents competition -- and harms the commons.

(Yes, the initial harm has been caused and is being caused by spammers -- but the dwindling possibility of running decentralized services on the Internet could very well end up being much more damaging than the cost of SPAM ever was).

And IM and video chat and so on could probably also need some more regulation at some point - because it seems obvious the big players are actively working towards artificial monopolies in order to control the flow of data, so that they can sit on the biggest pile of meta-data (and sometimes data/content) in order to make money (in the short term from simple meta-data/network analysis and advertising, in the long run from having the richest data set on which to do more advanced, automated machine learning).

In this crazy world in which water and other natural resources, previously controlled by and for the public, I can see how people would argue that it somehow makes sense for a private entity to curate and profit from the information that hides in the rich metadata of all human electronic communication -- I think it would be a very good idea to regulate this along the lines of other commons. An example might be parks and spaces accessible to the public - where there are certain things that owners cannot do - or have to do.

Re: Facebook Ordered to Stop Collecting Data on WhatsApp Users in Germany

#317

Post by oldmanjay »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #287
oldmanjay wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an addiction that can be quit instantly with no ill effects using nothing more than the willpower it takes to turn down a second slice of cake. Unfortunately I can't imagine what sort of social service can teach all these progressively-more-coddled generations how to tap willpower.

This is not a useful argument. One could certainly stop stop Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, Snapchat and so on. But you'd have to consider what the impact is; maybe you'll become more distant from friends and family. Maybe you'll miss out on events. These things are pretty important, for obvious reasons, and it's a shallow argument that everybody can simply walk away "instantly with no ill effects". It's up to the indi…

I'm not arguing, just stating simple facts. I have quit many of these things and went back to phones for communication, which still works perfectly well. Do I miss out on things? Maybe. It doesn't harm me in the least.

I certainly made no proclamation as to how anyone should live, which you seem to have mistakenly inferred. I suspect that level of unprovoked defensiveness to have an interesting underlying cause.

Re: Facebook Ordered to Stop Collecting Data on WhatsApp Users in Germany

#318

Post by e12e »

DannyBee wrote: post #156
omouse wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can in some cases and in some cases they should be turned into infrastructure. We've done the same with power plants and highways. And actually yes they do have that right! A corporation is given the privilege to exist by the state, that privilege can also be taken away.

"It can in some cases and in some cases they should be turned into infrastructure. We've done the same with power plants and highways. " This is precisely because there are no real alternatives. In fact, when and if solar + batteries becomes an actual viable solution to powering you + your neighbors, ... As for rights, yes, you do have the right, and in fact, personally, while i'm not in favor of trying to turn inter…

I think we need to start looking at the meta-data generated by communication networks (who talks/chats/tweets/etc whom, and when) as a commons, that needs to be regulated. Beyond the European privacy laws designed to protect privacy, I think there should probably be limits on who is allowed to do what, and how one is allowed to store and profit from the knowledge. It should be a regulated privilege to be able to handle this information, in a similar way that it's a privilege to run passenger trains, or even postal and phone services.

Re: Facebook Ordered to Stop Collecting Data on WhatsApp Users in Germany

#319

Post by cloudjacker »

davidf18 wrote: post #176

There is such a thing as being a good citizen on the net and part of that should be that these privacy violating features be "opt in" so that people can use them if they want to. Maybe NY State where I live will pass some privacy laws.

HA! Hahahaha funny, NY basically functions as the precursor to Federal policies that have dubious privacy and civil rights merits

Re: Facebook Ordered to Stop Collecting Data on WhatsApp Users in Germany

#320

Post by mhurron »

CaptSpify wrote: post #310
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with spirit of your comment, in practice I have to check my beliefs. I don't think Europeans really care that much. As evidence I present the title of the article which conspicuously doesn't read "Facebook ordered to stop collecting data on Facebook users". If people really cared about mass surveillance would they actively participate in Facebook et al? I don't use Facebook, Twitter, etc, ostensibly bec…

> If people really cared about mass surveillance would they actively participate in Facebook et al? The problem is: These people weren't using Facebook. They were using WhatsApp which promised to not send their data to Facebook. I don't use either because I personally think it's silly to assume they won't sell your data to someone, but they did make the promise that they wouldn't.

> They were using WhatsApp which promised to not send their data to Facebook.

I've seen that mentioned before, but where does it say that? On WhatsApp's ToS it says they won't share WhatsApp data for others to see on Facebook, not that Facebook itself wouldn't use that data.

Post reply on HN