Betrayed by an app she had never heard of • Hacker News Board

Re: Betrayed by an app she had never heard of

#81

Post by tty2300 » Fri, May 31, 2019, 7:37 AM UTC

mola wrote: post #65

RikNieu wrote: post #23

I find TrueCaller very usefull. I used to get sooo many sales and robo-calls a day that I seriously considered just getting rid of my phone. Now they get automatically blocked or I can just put them on a profile that they ring silently and hang up immediately. I get that this can be dangerous for journalists, but shouldn't they maybe investigate alternative ways of contacting sources privately? Mobile numbers are not…

If Robocalls are the problem, Truecaller isn't the solution. Regulations against unwanted harassment is. Robocalls are not a force of nature where our only recourse is a technological solution. They are a result of a human choice, where the absolute majority of individual think it's a menace. So our recourse is legal. band-aid solutions like Truecaller cause more problems. The Truecaller product is not a usual commod…

It also seems to be a problem unique to location. I have never in my life received a robo call in Australia but I did start to get sales calls until I put my number on the do not call list.

Re: Betrayed by an app she had never heard of

#82

Post by AlexCoventry » Fri, May 31, 2019, 7:38 AM UTC

sosborn wrote: post #78

mikedilger wrote: post #74

It seems absurd to me to consider data about a person to belong to that person. If I learn that Chloe is a reporter for The Inquirer, what law restricts me from telling somebody else? And if there is one, what else can I not say about her? Can I mention she is a brunette? Can I tell the story about going out for coffee, or am I violating her privacy by leaking the fact that she prefers coffee to tea? To get really ri…

Does there have to be a law for something to be distasteful and ethically dubious?

There probably does if it's sufficiently profitable and you want it to stop.

Re: Betrayed by an app she had never heard of

#83

Post by icebraining » Fri, May 31, 2019, 7:38 AM UTC

barefootcoder wrote: post #34

vorticalbox wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how it know what contacts are using it and auto add to what's app if you it add a number that's using it. It's just convenience. People don't want add users names they just want it to work. I believe signal are/were working on a way to work out this information without actually sending to the server

The problem is that they don't even give you the option to add the names yourself. You can use it, very crippled, without giving them your entire contact list, but it's almost unusable.

And in fact, they already have usernames (they show them in the Group chats), they simply refuse to show them.

Re: Betrayed by an app she had never heard of

#84

Post by thirdsun » Fri, May 31, 2019, 7:41 AM UTC

sriram_malhar wrote: post #15

tsjq wrote: post #11

once I unlist my number from truecaller website (never installed / used their mobile app), would it stop new people from adding my number to their database? ie, I unlist in May2019. i give my number to a new contact of mine in Aug2019. and they use truecaller. would that re-add my name to trucaller database, or would my number stay unlisted forever no matter how many new contacts save my number in their phones with t…

no. it does not remember you delisted, so you will be added again :(

What? That is absolutely insane and I don't see how this could be regarded as anything but malicious behavior.

Re: Betrayed by an app she had never heard of

#85

Post by johnchristopher » Fri, May 31, 2019, 7:47 AM UTC

> What happened to Chloe is that one of her sources was using TrueCaller.

Online communication is hard. The burden of security falls on every parties.

The real hard problem for an investigative journalist here is "Considering the ubiquitous nature of communication tech How do I handle my sources so they don't blunder before I even meet them ?"

Re: Betrayed by an app she had never heard of

#86

Post by xixixao » Fri, May 31, 2019, 7:47 AM UTC

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #67

alanh wrote: post #63

Wow, is it just me or is this a mountain-out-of-a-molehill situation? This is not fundamentally any different than “report spam” for email, or a user posting “is 800-xxx-xxxx a legit number?” online, or sending a contact card to a few million of your closest friends. I appreciate the situation that the journalist found herself in, but if she wants her number to be a secret, she needs to make sure the people she calls…

> is it just me or is this a mountain-out-of-a-molehill situation? It's just you. The example of the journalist is a very good example of exactly why this is such an extreme issue, but it really starts with the small things. What if you want to call someone, and not tell them your name? well, f#$£ you then, the app already told them. Don't want everyone knowing where you work? well f$%& you again, maybe somebody adde…

Let's go back to the world where there is no internet. Imagine someone spreads a rumor about you. Or a praise. People might have heard this, before they even met you. It can be illegal, harmful, or beneficial, but it's under the control of the people you interact with.

If you meet someone for the first time, and the person heard from someone that you're dealing drugs, and you tell her you don't, and ask them where they heard that, they might trust you over the rumor, and you'll try to eradicate the rumor.

There are differences, mainly in that the call receiver has greater power to reject the call based on the information they have.

I think the real story is in the interaction and how the app behaves, for the receiver. Were they aware that they were putting Chloe into the database? The article doesn't say. Without this, it's hard to judge whether the same thing couldn't have happened in a world without internet (imagine a small village). It doesn't seem to be entirely black and white.

Re: Betrayed by an app she had never heard of

#87

Post by neilalexander » Fri, May 31, 2019, 7:52 AM UTC

mola wrote: post #65

RikNieu wrote: post #23

I find TrueCaller very usefull. I used to get sooo many sales and robo-calls a day that I seriously considered just getting rid of my phone. Now they get automatically blocked or I can just put them on a profile that they ring silently and hang up immediately. I get that this can be dangerous for journalists, but shouldn't they maybe investigate alternative ways of contacting sources privately? Mobile numbers are not…

If Robocalls are the problem, Truecaller isn't the solution. Regulations against unwanted harassment is. Robocalls are not a force of nature where our only recourse is a technological solution. They are a result of a human choice, where the absolute majority of individual think it's a menace. So our recourse is legal. band-aid solutions like Truecaller cause more problems. The Truecaller product is not a usual commod…

At the end of the day, someone somewhere is granting robocallers access to the public telephone network. Hold those service providers legally responsible until they start taking action - it's not like there is no way to find out who they are.

Re: Betrayed by an app she had never heard of

#88

Post by mongol » Fri, May 31, 2019, 7:52 AM UTC

loriverkutya wrote: post #53

mongol wrote: post #49

Hmmm... I think Chloe, and anyone in her situation, could use a prefix when they call to not show the number at recipients phone. I think it is #31# Will improve the situation somewhat

And how would anybody call Chloe, if she cannot tell her number to anyone?

The point is that this puts her more in control and she can choose who she gives the number to.

Re: Betrayed by an app she had never heard of

#89

Post by johnchristopher » Fri, May 31, 2019, 7:53 AM UTC

This is great. I logged into the website to check if my number was collected.

It is.

So I click on "suggest a better name" in a naive attempt to erase myself from the grid.

I can't because they "don't collect personal information about private individuals in the EU".

Re: Betrayed by an app she had never heard of

#90

Post by yardstick » Fri, May 31, 2019, 7:55 AM UTC

alanh wrote: post #63

Wow, is it just me or is this a mountain-out-of-a-molehill situation? This is not fundamentally any different than “report spam” for email, or a user posting “is 800-xxx-xxxx a legit number?” online, or sending a contact card to a few million of your closest friends. I appreciate the situation that the journalist found herself in, but if she wants her number to be a secret, she needs to make sure the people she calls…

It’s quite different. A report spam function wouldn’t include (or shouldn’t include!) the identity of a person. If it does then it’s going over and above a spam filtering service.

Reporting a number as spam should then just result in future recipients seeing a “Probably Spam” or “Spam” etc based on reported levels on Spam vs Non-Spam reports for the number.

But I do agree that the journalist should have practiced better opsec and advised her sources that they probably don’t want her name to show up on their phone if she calls them at an inopportune time such as when around the very people she is investigating.

Also, disabling outbound caller ID would have helped.

Lessons learned all around.