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

WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 303 posts

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#161

Post by kevincox »

sneak wrote: post #131
kevincox wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Hashing phone numbers is basically useless. If they truncate enough there might be plausible deniability due to possible collisions but I suspect the chance of collision is still quite low as they don't want to annoy people with false positives.

False positives would be sent to the device for local comparison against full hashes; it wouldn't "annoy people" because it would not trigger a match unless the full hash matched on device. There is indeed a way to truncate enough to balance the amount of data sent to the device vs privacy.

Good point, that would definitely preserve some privacy.

I missed that option (basically now the Google Safe Browsing API works) and the Signal page isn't clear that this is how it works.

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#162

Post by acheron »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #101
pmlnr wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm so disappointed in this. Whatsapp is a functional tool. It was successful since it worked. One decade ago: s/Whatapp/Skype/g s/Facebook/Microsoft/g

The niche that Whatsapp filled and which brought it to massive adoption was not the same as Skype's. In South America (and Asia, too, if I understand correctly), Whatsapp was a way to avoid SMS charges on your mobile phone. Because now it is the only way many acquaintances and businesses can be contacted, it will remain entrenched even with this hostile new privacy policy. Skype, on the other hand, was about audio- o…

> Because now it is the only way many acquaintances and businesses can be contacted, it will remain entrenched even with this hostile new privacy policy.

“Will we ever end the MySpace monopoly?”

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/feb/08/business....

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#163

Post by estaseuropano »

HenryBemis wrote: post #149
justapassenger wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook has entirely failed to utilise it - to allow external systems to connect in so that businesses can do business on there. They weren’t allowed to do that under old TOS, and the whole point of this update is to allow data sharing when contacting businesses, that will allow building business tools. https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/security-and-privacy/answer...

I understand the objective on making (more) money. Why have 1bn users and make $1 per user? Isn't it better if then have 200mn users and make $20 per user? For me this 'shedding freeloaders and privacy-oriented-users' helps them more than not. We have discussed pricing and volumes of customers before in this forum, multiple times, and for multiple products/services. Is it better to have 1000 users and make $1 from ea…

Indeed Viber is even worse. At least somewhat transparent about it but certainly not a possible destination for privacy focused users.

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#164

Post by vl »

leephillips wrote: post #31
egwor wrote: post #14

I'm so disappointed in this. Whatsapp is a functional tool. It was successful since it worked. Facebook has entirely failed to utilise it - to allow external systems to connect in so that businesses can do business on there. The voice calls are also a disaster. They've now come along to start messing with the privacy to start selling ads. It is insane that they're able to make such a mess of this. Is there a word for…

I agree with you completely, but “Most of us paid some money for the app”: I didn’t know it was possible to pay for WhatsApp. On what platforms does it cost money?

On iPhone it was $1, since it was easy to take the money. On Android, where most users didn’t have payment setup, it was free with the promise to eventually charge $1 in the future, which they never did. Then Facebook bought them for $19B.

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#165

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

acheron wrote: post #162
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The niche that Whatsapp filled and which brought it to massive adoption was not the same as Skype's. In South America (and Asia, too, if I understand correctly), Whatsapp was a way to avoid SMS charges on your mobile phone. Because now it is the only way many acquaintances and businesses can be contacted, it will remain entrenched even with this hostile new privacy policy. Skype, on the other hand, was about audio- o…

> Because now it is the only way many acquaintances and businesses can be contacted, it will remain entrenched even with this hostile new privacy policy. “Will we ever end the MySpace monopoly?” https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/feb/08/business....

Not comparable. MySpace was never adopted by physical retail businesses and the hospitality industry. Those didn't join social media until the Facebook era and, indeed, many people are complaining that while fewer ordinary adults are using FB, for a lot of businesses their FB page remains their sole internet presence.

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#166

Post by another-dave »

HenryBemis wrote: post #149
justapassenger wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook has entirely failed to utilise it - to allow external systems to connect in so that businesses can do business on there. They weren’t allowed to do that under old TOS, and the whole point of this update is to allow data sharing when contacting businesses, that will allow building business tools. https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/security-and-privacy/answer...

I understand the objective on making (more) money. Why have 1bn users and make $1 per user? Isn't it better if then have 200mn users and make $20 per user? For me this 'shedding freeloaders and privacy-oriented-users' helps them more than not. We have discussed pricing and volumes of customers before in this forum, multiple times, and for multiple products/services. Is it better to have 1000 users and make $1 from ea…

That may be straightforwardly true for another service — Maps, Email, etc. — but the draw of a messaging platform is its network effect.

"All the freeloaders" is half the reason that WhatsApp is popular: no matter who you want to contact, they likely had a WhatsApp account — from your elderly mother to your college friends to the B&B that you're going to stay at abroad.

If it goes from "everyone I know is on WhatsApp" to "1 in 20 people I know are on WhatsApp" maybe I'm less inclined to continue to fork over $20.

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#167

Post by pera »

conradev wrote: post #155
pera wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2016 WhatsApp let users opt-out of Facebook data sharing with third parties by just checking a box in Account Settings [1]. Most of my friends and family did opt-out. Now, as far as I understand, they are being "forced to opt-in" by accepting the new ToS and Privacy Policy or, otherwise, getting locked out. 1 - https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/25/whatsapp-to-share-user-dat...

No, that is entirely incorrect: > When WhatsApp launched a major update to its privacy policy in August 2016, it started sharing user information and metadata with Facebook. At that time, the messaging service offered its billion existing users 30 days to opt out of at least some of the sharing. If you chose to opt out at the time, WhatsApp will continue to honor that choice. The feature is long gone from the app set…

> WhatsApp will continue to honor that choice.

That's good news but I can't find this stated anywhere in their policy:

https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/updates/privacy-policy/?lang=...

It seems like an important thing to mention.

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#168

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

pkulak wrote: post #148
bkirkby wrote: post #132

In the stickiness of whatsapp, I caused something of a stir with my family. After the prev announcement and having a general distrust of facebook that had grown over the years, I deleted my Facebook account and made the announcement in the family whatsapp group that I was leaving whatsapp and they could join me on signal if they wished. I then deleted my whatsapp account. There was much wailing and grumpiness and som…

Somewhat the same for me, though I'm in a bit later stage than you are. I moved my family to Signal as well, but we all got a bit frustrated with the lack of features. No (good) Chromebook support, no message editing, the HARD requirement on owning a phone (which locked out my kids), no message history or even a way to backup messages, etc. A few weeks ago I spun up a tiny EC2 instance, threw a matrix server on it, a…

These at great points about Signal I hadn't considered. Maybe I'll run a matrix server too. How does the experience compare to e.g. whatsapp?

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#170

Post by dillondoyle »

justapassenger wrote: post #86
egwor wrote: post #14

I'm so disappointed in this. Whatsapp is a functional tool. It was successful since it worked. Facebook has entirely failed to utilise it - to allow external systems to connect in so that businesses can do business on there. The voice calls are also a disaster. They've now come along to start messing with the privacy to start selling ads. It is insane that they're able to make such a mess of this. Is there a word for…

> Facebook has entirely failed to utilise it - to allow external systems to connect in so that businesses can do business on there. They weren’t allowed to do that under old TOS, and the whole point of this update is to allow data sharing when contacting businesses, that will allow building business tools. https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/security-and-privacy/answer...

Yeah I don't understand the outrage?

It brings more functionality like Messenger to interface with businesses - which I have found value in. For instance United service there was quicker and better than using the phone line to change/re-book flights.

Maybe I'm missing something?

Post reply on HN