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

WhatsApp told to stop sharing user data with Facebook by French authorities

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 423 posts

Re: WhatsApp told to stop sharing user data with Facebook by French authorities

#81

Post by 1_2__4 »

hartator wrote: post #36
titanix2 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t understand the downvote you’re facing. Whatsapp is operating in France so it must comply with the ruling here. Moreover the fact that they hide from the CNIL the data they are sharing probably mean they do not comply to the regulations (which are here to protect people). Too bad the sanctions are not dissuasive enough to force compliance. Politicians are allowing this situation from too long (same with taxes av…

It will be nightmare if you have to comply to every laws of a country just because you have users in it.

Oh boy are you in for some bad news.

Re: WhatsApp told to stop sharing user data with Facebook by French authorities

#82

Post by 1_2__4 »

hartator wrote: post #30
germanier wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing that would stop this legally (what authority should hinder them?). Things that can be enforced are only limited by practicality. Any non-EU business worth enforcing such a law against will very likely do business inside the EU (e.g. selling ads to local companies). Any money transferred can then be froozen to enforce this law. Facebook in particular does business as an Irish company for its EU users,…

So, if you sell products or services in China, you have to comply to all China regulations, not just exports? That doesn't make any sense.

I feel like you're getting quite the education in how the world works today.

Re: WhatsApp told to stop sharing user data with Facebook by French authorities

#83

Post by pdpi »

djsumdog wrote: post #75
teekert wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is that WA always told us that they wouldn't share our data. This was a reason people signed up, you can't just "Oops we did it anyway" on so many people. At least not on People who have a government with their best interest in mind.

Did WhatsApp charge anything? I thought for contracts you needed some kind of actual dollar amount (even $1) for it to be binding? Is that very US-law specific or am I way off here?

For a contract to be binding, you need consideration[1] from both parties. A contract where you give me something for nothing is not binding, we both need to be giving each other _something_. That something need not be money: A contract saying that you agree to give me your house if I give you my car would qualify. Google and Facebook extract enough value from targeting ads based on the personal information we agree to give them access to that access to said information is enough to qualify as consideration. I'd argue that, even if WhatsApp doesn't have a monetisation strategy that leverages said information, it's credible enough that it would qualify as consideration.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration

Re: WhatsApp told to stop sharing user data with Facebook by French authorities

#84

Post by Waterluvian »

1_2__4 wrote: post #79
djsumdog wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did WhatsApp charge anything? I thought for contracts you needed some kind of actual dollar amount (even $1) for it to be binding? Is that very US-law specific or am I way off here?

That's not even a little bit true.

It's called consideration. It's one of the main tests for a contract.

Re: WhatsApp told to stop sharing user data with Facebook by French authorities

#85

Post by StavrosK »

cJ0th wrote: post #62
teekert wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm taking baby steps towards Signal. I think 10% now of my regular "apping" is on Signal. There is still some on Telegram as well.

My advice would be Xmpp with OMEMO encryption. On mobile, you can get the Conversations App for Android via Fdroid (no google play!), for the iPhone there is Chatsecure and on the Desktop you can use Gajim. The advantage over Signal would be that 1.) you don't have to share your telephone number and 2.) you don't rely on a single service provider/accounts are decentralized (there are various services for free and pai…

I didn't downvote you, but I imagine the counterpoint goes something like "The advantage of Signal over your solution is that more than 3% of the population can set it up".

Re: WhatsApp told to stop sharing user data with Facebook by French authorities

#86

Post by pmlnr »

paimpozhil wrote: post #70
mancerayder wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love Signal but the reason why WhatsApp is so appealing is that there's a desktop client. I hate having to rely on my phone for texting people.

Telegram is even better, has a nice desktop client which doesn't really depend on the mobile . Whatsapp's web client is just an UI to the mobile app meaning you also need to have phone connected to internet always for it to work. Telegram is much more responsive compared to the Whatsapp.

Telegram is brilliant: small, fast, efficient client for virtually anything, including bitlbee. On the other side, it's probably hacked by most of the agencies, but to be honest: meh. Someone will spy on me anyway; at least I have an efficient, open source client, which isn't trying to spy on me every possible way.

Re: WhatsApp told to stop sharing user data with Facebook by French authorities

#87

Post by andrewaylett »

pdpi wrote: post #83
djsumdog wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did WhatsApp charge anything? I thought for contracts you needed some kind of actual dollar amount (even $1) for it to be binding? Is that very US-law specific or am I way off here?

For a contract to be binding, you need consideration[1] from both parties. A contract where you give me something for nothing is not binding, we both need to be giving each other _something_. That something need not be money: A contract saying that you agree to give me your house if I give you my car would qualify. Google and Facebook extract enough value from targeting ads based on the personal information we agree…

That still depends on the jurisdiction: Scotland, for example, does allow for contracts without consideration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_contract_law

Re: WhatsApp told to stop sharing user data with Facebook by French authorities

#88

Post by Jarwain »

cJ0th wrote: post #62
teekert wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm taking baby steps towards Signal. I think 10% now of my regular "apping" is on Signal. There is still some on Telegram as well.

My advice would be Xmpp with OMEMO encryption. On mobile, you can get the Conversations App for Android via Fdroid (no google play!), for the iPhone there is Chatsecure and on the Desktop you can use Gajim. The advantage over Signal would be that 1.) you don't have to share your telephone number and 2.) you don't rely on a single service provider/accounts are decentralized (there are various services for free and pai…

If memory serves, XMPP is pretty battery intensive on mobile because one has to maintain a consistent connection to the server to receive messages

Re: WhatsApp told to stop sharing user data with Facebook by French authorities

#89

Post by shakna »

djsumdog wrote: post #75
teekert wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is that WA always told us that they wouldn't share our data. This was a reason people signed up, you can't just "Oops we did it anyway" on so many people. At least not on People who have a government with their best interest in mind.

Did WhatsApp charge anything? I thought for contracts you needed some kind of actual dollar amount (even $1) for it to be binding? Is that very US-law specific or am I way off here?

It changes a lot depending on your jurisdiction, but is generally:

> A valid contract needs the following elements: People entering the contract must intend the contract to be binding. An offer is made by one person and is freely accepted by another. Some price (money, right or benefit) is paid in return for a promise. [0]

So the fact WhatsApp is providing a service, means some price has been "exchanged" (for lack of a more precise term). The price does not need to be financial, any benefit can be viewed that way.

So yes, it does appear that a legal contract was formed. Even in the US. [1]

(A financial benefit is not required, but it makes it more clear that the contract was valid. Hence the habit of ridiculous $1 contracts.)

[0] https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/find-legal-answers/consumer-...

[1] See under Consideration: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/175238

Re: WhatsApp told to stop sharing user data with Facebook by French authorities

#90

Post by WJW »

Waterluvian wrote: post #84
1_2__4 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not even a little bit true.

It's called consideration. It's one of the main tests for a contract.

But the consideration does not have to in the form of money, it just has to be "worth" something. The considerations in question here are personal information on the users' side and the Whatsapp app+service on the company's side.
Post reply on HN