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

Privacy groups ask FTC to block Facebook-WhatsApp deal

thegeekyglobe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 72 posts

Re: Privacy groups ask FTC to block Facebook-WhatsApp deal

#31

Post by higherpurpose »

netcan wrote: post #13
enscr wrote: post #2

The important part from the article is : "until there is a clearer understanding of how the company intends to use the personal data of WhatsApp’s 450 million users" FB would be drooling over all the messages, pics & videos on Whatsapp. For person-to-person communication, I prefer a paid app over an ad-supported free one. If I wanted the latter, there are no shortage of options. I wonder how Whatsapp spells out the u…

'I prefer a paid app over an ad-supported free one' This gets mentioned a lot. I don't quite understand the logic. Say WhatsApp cost users $3.99, when Facebook buys them for 5 billion $3.99s what difference does it make? Facebook gets 3990 messages, a list of people you know, groups and whatever else. They can now add those to their vast collection of stuff they know about you, Facebook profile or not. What do the $3…

That's why when you pay or donate to such an app, you should also make sure it has end to end encryption.

Re: Privacy groups ask FTC to block Facebook-WhatsApp deal

#32

Post by devcpp »

kevcampb wrote: post #17

Why would any privacy advocate want to block this deal? I can only see this deal being beneficial for privacy in the long run. Facebook are unable to collect data from the service without changing the ToS, which will likely cause a user exodus. It's going to put such a huge unrecoverable dent in Facebook's finances that it will be a significant long term disadvantage to them. If you are a privacy advocate, wait until…

Jump ship? There is none on the horizon.

Re: Privacy groups ask FTC to block Facebook-WhatsApp deal

#34

Post by happyscrappy »

kevcampb wrote: post #14
enscr wrote: post #2

The important part from the article is : "until there is a clearer understanding of how the company intends to use the personal data of WhatsApp’s 450 million users" FB would be drooling over all the messages, pics & videos on Whatsapp. For person-to-person communication, I prefer a paid app over an ad-supported free one. If I wanted the latter, there are no shortage of options. I wonder how Whatsapp spells out the u…

Why not read the ToS? It's pretty clear and very user friendly. The short version - they don't store your data, and there is no right for Facebook to get that data historically. That's not to say they can't change it in future, but I'm sure if they do there will be a massive exodus from the network. And to further clarify on your comment - whatsapp is a paid for app, not advert supported. They only charge the iPhone…

"In the event that WhatsApp is acquired by or merged with a third party entity, we reserve the right to transfer or assign the information we have collected from our users as part of such merger, acquisition, sale, or other change of control." http://www.whatsapp.com/legal/

Re: Privacy groups ask FTC to block Facebook-WhatsApp deal

#36

Post by JTon »

kevcampb wrote: post #18
seabee wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Android version is free for one year only.

And it seems that they very rarely collect those fees, if at all. I've certainly had my android install over one year, and no request for payment. See plenty of other similar reports online. Suspect getting users to pay $1 is going to be a real pain, not for the cost, but for the convenience factor.

You say rarely, but I've never heard of any accounts of them collecting the fee. Do you know if they have?

Re: Privacy groups ask FTC to block Facebook-WhatsApp deal

#37

Post by dhimes »

amirmc wrote: post #23
stingraycharles wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is implied that when you pay, you are the customer, and when it's ad-supported you're the product instead. In this case, however, you paid for the Whatsapp app, but with Facebook acquiring Whatsapp you'll also pay with your personal data.

> "It is implied that when you pay, you are the customer, and when it's ad-supported you're the product instead." This meme needs to die. It implies a dividing line where none exists. There is absolutely no reason why you can't end up being both a paying user of a product and have data about you sold on, aggregated etc. If a company can find a way to get paid twice, why wouldn't they do so?

This meme needs to be shouted from the mountaintops until everybody understands it. Indeed you are correct- a company can be pure evil and charge you for wrecking your privacy. But if the app is free, that's all they can do and it's pretty obvious they are going to do it. If they are charging you for the product, there is at least some hope that they won't, and if they do, they have crossed a moral line- in the same sense as someone selling your email address.

Re: Privacy groups ask FTC to block Facebook-WhatsApp deal

#38

Post by dhimes »

nyrina wrote: post #11
koosa wrote: post #8

Immediately after striking Facebook-WattsApp deal, Koum had mentioned in one of his tweets that users' privacy and security is their top concern and I hope he sticks to his guns.

He wouldn't exactly go out and tell people he just sold all their messages and address books, though, would he? The message he wrote, was a message he had to write to keep customers using WhatsApp

Indeed. They may negotiate some privacy agreement in the sale (that is, fb and the feds), but that agreement will likely expire in due course, as it becomes a 'burden' to the business.

Re: Privacy groups ask FTC to block Facebook-WhatsApp deal

#39

Post by jp555 »

enscr wrote: post #28
amirmc wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's joining the Board of Directors, so he does have much more control than most.

Sure he'll get a chair but that's where it stops. FB, the company is about targeted advertisements based on your profile, activity etc. There's no reason why they won't do that with Whatsapp. They have most definitely not paid $19 billion to get only 99 cent revenue every year. They perhaps are eyeing for much more per user.

With over 400 million active monthly users, that would be much closer to $399,000,000 than $0.99 every year.

WhatsApp has nearly twice the active users as Twitter, and many more than Skype, LinkedIn, Instagram, and even Angry Birds.

Not only that, WhatsApp has a user:employee ratio of over 8,000,000:1. That is quite remarkable, over 8x the users per employee than Youtube.

There is much more value in WhatsApp for FB than just eyeballs.

Re: Privacy groups ask FTC to block Facebook-WhatsApp deal

#40

Post by amirmc »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #29
amirmc wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "It is implied that when you pay, you are the customer, and when it's ad-supported you're the product instead." This meme needs to die. It implies a dividing line where none exists. There is absolutely no reason why you can't end up being both a paying user of a product and have data about you sold on, aggregated etc. If a company can find a way to get paid twice, why wouldn't they do so?

Does Apple sell user data?

They have iAd so they've put themselves in the advertising game. The systemic issue with advertising is the desire to extract as much information as possible, in order to better target those ads and help their customers (those paying for the ads) to make a return.

It remains to be seen how much influence the Ad folks in Apple will have over the rest of the iOS/iPhone ecosystem. In the short term, I doubt there's much to worry about but in the long term, and if iAds become a significant revenue driver, who knows.

http://advertising.apple.com

Post reply on HN