[HN Gopher] How WhatsApp works with other Facebook products ___________________________________________________________________ How WhatsApp works with other Facebook products Author : woliveirajr Score : 269 points Date : 2021-01-06 12:11 UTC (10 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.whatsapp.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.whatsapp.com) | kace91 wrote: | I already knew this but it's still fucked. | | In my country WhatsApp is used for everything from talking to | friends through setting up a date with your hairdresser to group | activities like school parents groups. | | There is an expectation that the information you share by someone | having your number is very limited - the person that has your | number can text you, yes, but they can't know about you, and you | can limit the small amount of info you let through like your | profile picture or your online state using privacy controls. | | This expectation is completely removed when adding somebody's | number to your contact list is enough for Facebook to do its | magic and reveal the owner in your Facebook friends suggestions. | | I've had it happen dozens of times, I start texting a tinder | match and suddenly her profile is there in my suggestions. It's | common for it to misfire and I end up being suggested the | personal account of the owner of a business I bought something | for. They don't even need to text you, you add the number to your | phone's contact list and it's there. | | Facebook needs to be broken apart, and we need a law that the | data you share with an app can't be used for others period, even | more so if they were separate businesses when you started using | the service, and a change of policies is not enough - you might | already be locked in. | _fat_santa wrote: | My suggestion would be to not connect any Facebook services. I | have an old school FB.com account, an Instagram and a WhatsApp. | All three of these accounts are not aware of one another. I'm | sure FB probably still has ways of figuring this out but it | gets you pretty far in mitigating the infomation flow between | various FB products. | salex89 wrote: | Same in mine, but instead of WhatsApp it is Rakuten Viber, | which is massively popular in Eastern Europe. Beats me why, I | don't like it that much and don't have a slightest idea about | what are they doing with our data. But it became an issue | trying to communicate without it. I'm a WhatsApp user from the | early days, and I'm still dreaming about a day WhatsApp will be | "independent" again. | vijaybritto wrote: | Hi, it wont be independent again. | walkingolof wrote: | Signal (signal.org) is a good replacement! | baxtr wrote: | I am trying to get rid of WhatsApp. My strategy for this is: | Use iMessage with friends in the Apple world. Convince the | Android folks to start using Signal. Has been quite successful | so far. | [deleted] | sneak wrote: | iMessage's end to end cryptography has been backdoored via | iCloud Backup, on by default since 2011. It uploads complete | message history to Apple (even SMS, which they would not | normally see) with Apple keys. Even if you have it turned | off, your conversation partners won't. | | Have your Apple friends install Signal, too. | GoldenStake wrote: | I'm excited for the public launch of e2e encryption in the | Android default Messages app. This would provide encrypted | messages to a huge audience, everyone already on Android. | | Signal has stated that they will not support RCS (possibly | that they can't due to technical limitations). | giovannibonetti wrote: | Telegram is a great alternative to WhatsApp. It's better in | almost every aspect, as far as I can tell. | msh wrote: | Except message security. Whatsapp is end2end encrypted by | default. Telegram does not, they only provide transport | security by default. | tonyztan wrote: | Signal is a better choice because it uses end-to-end | encryption by default. | lxgr wrote: | Besides the obvious downside of not being meaningfully | encrypted (even pointing out transport encryption as just | "encryption" is borderline deceptive marketing these days, | IMO), until recently it also had a very dubious business | model. | | It now seems to be pivoting towards ad support, but isn't | this exactly what people have been trying to get away from | Facebook for? | yoavm wrote: | It's worse in the most important aspect for messaging: it | is not end-to-end encrypted by default. It wouldn't be | crazy to assume some could get access to your messages. | | [0] | https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/telegram- | rus... | young_unixer wrote: | Whenever I try to install Signal, it asks me to update Google | Play Services. Sorry, but using Google Play Services seems | worse than using Whatsapp. | scotu wrote: | doesn't whatsapp use Google play services? that's how you | normally do push notification on android | 29083011397778 wrote: | When I disable all Google services, I still recieve Wire, | whatsapp, Messenger Lite (for marketplace), and email | messages. All messages are on-time, with Whatsapp coming | through faster than on my coworkers iphones. | | Ironically, Fluffychat, a Matrix client, is the outlier - | it relies on Google Services Framework to deliver | messages | young_unixer wrote: | It works fine for me. Maybe notifications don't appear as | fast as they did when I used Google Play Services (I'm | not sure about this), but everything else works fine. | raziel2p wrote: | This has never happened to me, probably because I don't install | the Facebook app and don't give Messenger Lite access to my | contacts. If Facebook and Whatsapp were sharing phone numbers | or metadata behind the scenes I would expect to see a lot of | suggestions when I log in to the Facebook website, but I don't. | | Still agree with your opinion, though. Also, I find it annoying | that you can't message someone on WhatsApp without adding them | to contacts. | dearjames wrote: | You can actually send a message without saving a contact. | Using WhatsApp's click to chat: | wa.me/263xxxxxxxxx?text=Hello | | Note: The phone number with country code and no preceding | plus. | | Opening that link will launch WhatsApp (or WhatsApp web) to | the user's number and the text "Hello" in the message field. | dijksterhuis wrote: | Doesnt seems to work for me. Get directed to a page saying | I don't have WhatsApp installed (I do). | | Android v8, Firefox v68.6. | ffpip wrote: | That is because you are opening in browser. You have to | set wa.me links to open in app. | | Open firefox settings, toggle 'open links in app'. | | (or) | | Open a chat with yourself in whatsapp. | https://wa.me/your-number . You can spam anything here, | it's personal and only you can see it. | | They send wa.me/number-of-person-you-are-contacting in | that chat. Click on it and it will start a chat with | person-you-are-contacting. | | All numbers MUST be in international format. Country code | and number. | londons_explore wrote: | On Chrome Desktop Linux, it doesn't work despite me being | logged into whatsapp web. Tries to do some xdg-open thing, | but clearly that will never work considering whatsapp web | has no registered protocol handlers... | | Looks like it is some half completed demo integration | rather than production ready... | dearjames wrote: | Yeah it used to be quite hopeless unless you opened the | link in a tab that had already loaded WhatsApp web. Now | however, if you click the green button that says | "CONTINUE TO CHAT" on the initial screen, it'll load a | page with an option to download WhatsApp and another | that's titled "use WhatsApp Web", just click on that one. | Unfortunately, it will load a new instance of WhatsApp | web in the current window even if you already have | another open in another tab. | TrianguloY wrote: | I made a tool exactly to do this: | https://trianguloy.github.io/OpenInWhatsapp_Web/ | ffpip wrote: | Send the link to yourself in whatsapp and then click on | it. | | Open a chat with yourself in whatsapp. | https://wa.me/your-number . You can spam anything here, | it's personal and only you can see it. | | They send wa.me/number-of-person-you-are-contacting in | that chat. Click on it and it will start a chat with | person-you-are-contacting. | | All numbers MUST be in international format. Country code | and number. | toper-centage wrote: | Facebook doesn't have my phone number but it still happens to | me regularly, because I need the Facebook messenger app. Its | really fucked. | dijksterhuis wrote: | > Also, I find it annoying that you can't message someone on | WhatsApp without adding them to contacts. | | You can, if you're both part of a group chat together. Tap on | their number and a pop up comes up allowing you to message | said person. | | Also agree with the opinions expressed even with similar | experience to yourself (no Facebook or messenger apps | installed, WhatsApp contacts don't appear as suggestions on | FB website). | chippytea wrote: | There are also third party apps like "Click to Chat" that | let you start conversations with phone numbers. Once you | sent 1 message you can just use whatsapp normally. | csunbird wrote: | But your contacts do install the apps and Facebook can now | match you. | whywhywhywhy wrote: | >I don't install the Facebook app and don't give Messenger | Lite access to my contacts | | Literally doesn't matter what you do, it's what other people | do with your data. I can tell from this guy I interned for 15 | years ago that at one point he uploaded his entire address | book to Facebook including my name, email and phone number | because he still shows up in facebook recommendations to me | today on Facebook and IG. | | Never gave them access to my contacts either or even had him | in my contacts but FB's shadow profile knows he knows who I | am. | osobo wrote: | They don't as much share info as live off the same ecosystem | in your phone. Regular users, who don't actively block their | FB apps from accessing their phones in depth, will store | Whatsapp contacts on their phones, which in turn are read by | the FB and/or Messenger app. Since neither knows the context, | it just assumes its a new contact and show you info | accordingly. | juliand wrote: | > Also, I find it annoying that you can't message someone on | WhatsApp without adding them to contacts. | | The trick that i use is to type their number into the domain | wa.me in the following format https://wa.me/xxxxxxxxxxx | | That allows you to open a chat to that specific number | without adding them to your contact list. | tmp538394722 wrote: | That's a neat trick, but "Works for me" is not a solution | for mass surveillance. | kace91 wrote: | I don't use their apps. | | They are almost certainly sharing data behind the scenes, | they openly say this in op's link about how WhatsApp uses | your data: | | > improving their services and your experiences using them, | such as making suggestions for you (for example, of friends | or group connections, or of interesting content), (...) | across the Facebook Company Products; | | There is a small chance that they've gotten all my data from | the people at the other side of the conversation if they have | the fb app installed I guess, which really isn't much better. | AlexandrB wrote: | > Also, I find it annoying that you can't message someone on | WhatsApp without adding them to contacts. | | Is this a new limitation? On iOS I'm still able to message | someone new using only their phone number. Though I'm | blocking contact access so perhaps that's why. | saargrin wrote: | here in israel its the same | | and we also got very high presence of Truecaller so basically | if you expose your phone number anybody can find your real name | and FB profile | infinityplus1 wrote: | To hide names from Truecaller, we have to create a truecaller | account with the phone number and then change the name from | your profile. | [deleted] | unixhero wrote: | Ah, latin america. | | Ah, Brazil. | iamgopal wrote: | Given that all features are known, how difficult is to build | p2p WhatsApp clone ? Including all feature parity ? | eganist wrote: | > Given that all features are known, how difficult is to | build p2p WhatsApp clone ? Including all feature parity ? | | Signal. It even has one of WhatsApp's founders behind it now. | mattl wrote: | Signal doesn't have feature parity with WhatsApp. | | Signal groups are a mess. | benhurmarcel wrote: | It already exists, but there's one feature that you can't | copy from Whatsapp: its 2 billion users. | hombre_fatal wrote: | Also, free WhatsApp data is a perk of telcos in many | countries (most of the Americas). A service that uses up | expensive data just cannot compete with one that does not. | Drew_ wrote: | Stop giving your Facebook apps access to your contacts. Newly | added contacts were also showing up as suggestions in Facebook | and Instagram until I turned this off. iOS and Android give you | all the control you need to stop this from happening you just | have to use it. | the_gipsy wrote: | It happens without any facebook app installed, just tinder + | whatsapp and voila, you'll get the suggestion when you log on | with a browser. | parliament32 wrote: | Whatsapp is a facebook app, that's the point. | the_gipsy wrote: | Well I installed whatsapp early on when it was just and | only a messaging app. I couldn't possibly have predicted | that it would be bought by facebook and used to cross- | reference with some dating app. | anoncow wrote: | Stopped contact access, but my business Instagram handle | keeps recommending me to follow my personal friends. | astronautjones wrote: | it still gets your information if you're in someone else's | contact list and they make the connection | antaviana wrote: | This. I recently installed Telegram without giving access | to my contact list. | | Within seconds of installing, I received a telegram from a | co-worker who jokingly said: "For privacy reasons, when you | install Telegram, it sends a message to all of your | contacts." | | It simply creates your virtual contact list from the | contact lists of your contacts. | [deleted] | tmp538394722 wrote: | For most people it's not reasonable to use WhatsApp without | sharing your contact list. | | How do you know who you can message with it if the app can't | check who has it? | | Do you, every time you want to message someone, manually copy | in their number? For every person you communicate with? | | What if they previously didn't have WhatsApp installed, but | have since installed, so you also need to check again every | time you want to message someone who formerly didn't have | WhatsApp. | | That's not going to work for people. | stinos wrote: | _How do you know who you can message with it if the app | can't check who has it?_ | | You ask them via other means? It might be slightly | inconvenient, yes, but you almost make it sound like even | SMS is an impossible task; SMS is not even _that_ old and | none of the millions who used it before there were even | apps to do so had much of the problems you mention. Also | because not everyone has a usecase requiring to know who | has what app. | | I run WhatsApp on an Android instance with an account | solely for that, so no contacts etc, and literally all my | contacts/groups in WhatsApp are people who at one point | told 'let's do this via whatsapp'. Then again, I don't need | to message people I don't know with it so I don't have any | problems. | | _Do you, every time you want to message someone, manually | copy in their number? For every person you communicate | with?_ | | No, just once, or else they send me a message and we're | talking. | | tldr; ok I'm not 'most people' in this regard, but still I | think you're making things look way harder then they | actually are | Frondo wrote: | SMS is 25+ years old -- I only know I had it on my first | phone -- and the absolute ubiquity of replacements (of | which WhatsApp is just one) suggests those problems are | real ones for a lot of people. If you're not "most | people" in this conversation, that's a pretty big caveat | when talking about how the problems are not actually so, | really. | AlexandrB wrote: | I've been using WhatsApp without giving it contact access | for a few years and it's _possible_ but _annoying_. Since | WhatsApp still shows you recent chats you don 't have to | type phone numbers each time, you just select from the list | of recent chats. You also get to see people's WhatsApp | profile photo so it's generally possible to know who you're | talking to even though their username is their phone | number. This works ok for me with around a dozen frequent | WhatsApp contacts but I could see it breaking down if you | have more than 20 frequent contacts. | | > What if they previously didn't have WhatsApp installed, | but have since installed, so you also need to check again | every time you want to message someone who formerly didn't | have WhatsApp. | | Why is this important? I use WhatsApp instead of SMS for | contacts who don't have (free) SMS or who want the extra | security. It's pretty intentional. Why would I want to use | WhatsApp with _everyone_? That concept seems aligned with | Facebook 's goals, not mine. | tmp538394722 wrote: | > Why is this important? I use WhatsApp instead of SMS | for contacts who don't have (free) SMS or who want the | extra security. | | Because WhatsApp (and other messengers) offer a far | superior messaging experience to SMS: higher fidelity | media, on time delivery, delivery status, e2e, and many | more. Better experience means that people actually use | it. | | As you say, for "extra security". But not everyone | arrived at the decision of "how much security" they need | at the same moment in time. People come to and leave the | WA platform, and it's desirable for me to know where | people are at _now_ so I can use e2e in new places as | opposed to only with the subset of my social graph that I | manually copied and pasted in which had installed WA | before me. | | I don't deny that you like your setup, but it sounds | pretty painful and pretty unlikely to appeal to a broad | swathe of people, which is essential when trying to | combat mass surveillance. | | (is mass surveillance why you jump through these hoops?) | ArchOversight wrote: | On my prepaid plan in Europe I get a lot more data for | the money than I get SMS messages. Text messages cost me | 10 cents per message. | | WhatsApp by comparison was practically free. So it is not | even about superior messaging experience, it also comes | down to cost. | FalconSensei wrote: | > possible but annoying | | That's the thing: people (non-tech, non-privacy aware) | are always trading privacy for convenience. | cameronbrown wrote: | What's sorely needed is a way to stop the exfiltration of | private data when it's not provided for a specific reason. | I bet very few people who share their contacts with | WhatsApp know they're getting uploaded to Facebook. | hadrien01 wrote: | Contact sharing between Facebook and WhatsApp should be | opt-in with GDPR, but enforcement has been almost non- | existent these last few years. | hda111 wrote: | WhatsApp is nearly unusable without contact access in iOS. | That's why I installed it a long time ago. | triceratops wrote: | It's annoying, but not "nearly unusable". I've been using | it that way for a long time. I've gotten pretty good at | figuring people out from their display pics. | SkyMarshal wrote: | Alternatively, delete the Facebook app from your mobile | devices and only use Facebook via web (or only on your | computers and not mobile). | comprev wrote: | Plus removing IG, FB and other social media apps | dramatically improves battery life on older phones. | tw25656993 wrote: | Why are you still using their products? From your comment you | seem pretty passionate about this issue. | | From economics there is the concept of "revealed preference", | your individual subjective preferences are revealed by the | choices you make. In this case, we can observe that Facebook's | subjectively bad qualities are enough to demand politicians Do | Something, but not enough to suffer the inconveniences of using | a different chat app, etc. | | The sad irony is that these points of concern are also | potential advantages for competing platforms (e.g., Signal), | and by regulating them away, Facebook/Whatsapp become further | entrenched. | ddulaney wrote: | > In my country WhatsApp is used for everything from talking | to friends through setting up a date with your hairdresser to | group activities like school parents groups. | | Presumably because they would like to be able to set up a | date with their hairdresser and participate in parents | groups. Maybe they could convince their friends to switch, | but also maybe not. This is why there is a call for | government intervention: a single person faces an enormous | social cost for boycotting FB properties, but the government | can coordinate either a change on Facebook's end or a | simultaneous changeover to other services. | tw25656993 wrote: | > a single person faces an enormous social cost for | boycotting FB properties | | I'm not clear on how to quantify "enormous". Many people | don't use facebook and still manage to make appointments | and lead fulfilling social lives. | | That said, it is clear that for many people the "social | cost" is larger than the "facebook evil cost", even for | people demanding government intervention. I guess for those | people, the cost for demanding politicians Do Something is | even less. | reaperducer wrote: | _I 'm not clear on how to quantify "enormous". Many | people don't use facebook and still manage to make | appointments and lead fulfilling social lives._ | | It depends a lot on your country or region. Your life is | different from other people's lives. | | In my country, decoupling from Facebook is pretty easy. | Google, less so, but doable. | | In some countries, decoupling from certain apps or | ecosystems will leave you pretty much stranded. | young_unixer wrote: | > Presumably because they would like to be able to set up a | date with their hairdresser and participate in parents | groups. | | That's a problem, but it's _their_ problem. Having a | problem doesn 't justify coercing others (in this case, | Facebook) to solve it for them. | | It's OK if we want to solve those problems for them, but | it's not OK to force someone else to solve them. | livre wrote: | It is sometimes even worse than that, my doctor | appointments have to go through WhatsApp too. I don't like | WhatsApp but I have no choice when my health depends on it. | [deleted] | blinkingled wrote: | How does it affect someone if they don't have Facebook account or | even have the FB app installed? (i.e. someone using just | WhatsApp.) Does FB still get my data via WhatsApp? | baggachipz wrote: | I think it would be extremely foolish to assume they don't. | blinkingled wrote: | I suspected that might be/is the case - but I also read their | privacy policy and they claim to provide end to end | encryption, not store your messages after your device | downloads it and I haven't seen any ads. So I was trying to | figure if they're lying about the encryption or FB doesn't | get any data apart from my contact list which presumably | isn't encrypted end to end. | | It's a weird situation really. | bschne wrote: | I signed up for facebook again a few days ago because I need an | account to manage some events / pages whose target demo is still | reachable on the platform. | | My account was dead for about two years or so before that. Within | a minute or two of signing up with my (real) email and phone | number, basically my whole friend list from back when I had an | account, people I've texted on whatsapp once years ago, etc. were | in friend suggestions. Downright creepy. | dimitrios1 wrote: | In a way, I see utility in companies like Facebook openly | exploiting whats possible with current technologies, web APIs, | and mobile platforms so that privacy laws have a target of what | to address and so that the general public can get a grasp of | what's going on. It's better than it happening in the dark, | behind the scences. | | Before Facebook, if you tried to explain to a layman that your | social data can be used to manipulate entire elections, people | probably would have looked at you with strange and furrowed | brows. Now, it's a question of the best way to address the | issue. | bschne wrote: | Isn't the existence of large enough centrally controlled | networks for this exploitation to become possible pretty much | inseparable from it becoming a public topic that gets | addressed by governements and discussed by the wider public? | I don't think facebook served as a catalyst for the public to | start caring about something that was going on in the same / | an equally problematic form pre-facebook. | oblio wrote: | I didn't even have a Facebook account until about 7 years ago. | | I finally made one and I had neatly sorted real life friends as | part of my friends suggestion. | | That's when I realized they already had a shadow profile of me | from everyone else, all I did was activate it and increase | their confidence level from 95% or something to 100%... | bzb6 wrote: | Because you hadn't deleted your account, you disabled it | temporarily. It helps to read what one clicks. | bschne wrote: | Not sure where you're getting this from my post, but that is | false. I actually deleted it, did not log in again during the | "grace period" where they will just reactivate it, and my new | account I created was initially empty (no profile data, | friends, message history, you name it). | bzb6 wrote: | Sorry, I misread. | | What usually happens is that those people have you on their | contact lists, which they uploaded to Facebook to find more | friends. | hadrien01 wrote: | _> When Facebook notified the acquisition of WhatsApp in 2014, it | informed the Commission that it would be unable to establish | reliable automated matching between Facebook users ' accounts and | WhatsApp users' accounts. It stated this both in the notification | form and in a reply to a request of information from the | Commission. However, in August 2016, WhatsApp announced updates | to its terms of service and privacy policy, including the | possibility of linking WhatsApp users' phone numbers with | Facebook users' identities._ | | https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_... | simias wrote: | I may be misunderstanding this legalese vocabulary but doesn't | "unable" mean "technically incapable"? As in, there's no | technical way of matching users? | | Because if so, man, whoever wrote this must have laughed a lot | when they wrote it. You may not be able to match 100% of users | of course, but with the amount of personal data FB has access | to it should be able to match a good chunk of the userbase with | a high degree of confidence if it wanted to. | gabaix wrote: | In the 2014 merger procedure [1] Facebook described it as | 'very hard', and 'against its own interest'. | | > "The Notifying Party submitted that integration between | WhatsApp and Facebook would pose significant technical | difficulties. Notably, integration of WhatsApp's and | Facebook's networks would require matching WhatsApp users' | profiles with their profiles on Facebook (or vice versa). | This would be complicated without the users' involvement | since Facebook and WhatsApp use different unique user | identifiers: Facebook ID and mobile phone number, | respectively. Consequently, Facebook would be unable to | automatically and reliably associate a Facebook ID with a | valid phone number used by a user on WhatsApp. Matching of | WhatsApp profiles with Facebook profiles would most likely | have to be done manually by users, which in the Notifying | Party's view is likely to result in a significant backlash | from both users of Facebook and WhatsApp who do not want to | match their accounts. Finally, the Notifying Party stated | that, beyond the difficulties in matching user IDs, | significant engineering hurdles would have to be overcome to | enable cross-platform communications, reflecting the | fundamentally different architecture of Facebook and WhatsApp | (including the former being cloud-based, the latter not)." | | It seems the EU commission interpreted the statement as 'not | possible'. Facebook played them. | | [1] https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/ | m72... | ugopapa wrote: | I don't know exactly what to say when reading this. I'm | astounded that somebody could consider this a reliable | explanation. Still, I can assume incompetence from whoever | did that, but the person who drafted it is clearly in bad | faith. How can that have no repercussions? | hadrien01 wrote: | It did have repercussions, albeit extremely limited to | the scale of Facebook, they were fined 110 million euros | callamdelaney wrote: | Reliable is the key word. That's subjective. Could mean | anything from 1% to 99.99%. In some cases 99.99% is still | unreliable ;) | magicalhippo wrote: | > doesn't "unable" mean "technically incapable"? | | Unable is followed by "to establish reliable automated | matching". | | I think the key words here are "reliable" and "automated". | There's a _ton_ of wiggle room in those words. | robertlagrant wrote: | "Unable" is an interesting word. Does that mean they would | never allow the possibility by policy, or that they could not | at that time do it, but they have the option to enable it | technically in the future? | usrusr wrote: | The interesting word I think is "reliable": some extremely | rare corner case where the match isn't correct would be | enough to make that claim true, but they make it sound as if | it was worse than randomly guessing. | goldcd wrote: | Indeed. That 0.01% is very handy, when you're being grilled | by oversight. | Vinnl wrote: | I think this is what Facebook got fined for earlier, right? | (With the caveat that it did not lead to a reversal of the | regulatory approval of the merger, because it was not | contingent on this.) | dmitriid wrote: | > Learn more about the other Facebook Companies and their privacy | practices by reviewing their privacy policies. | | a.k.a.: "we absolve ourselves of all responsibility because you | should read the million or so pages of dense legalese yourself" | | And this is most likely illegal under GDPR. | pbhjpbhj wrote: | I was hoping this was about how WhatsApp (the app) could now do a | Facebook messaging, or somesuch. | | It seems more about how WhatsApp/Facebook the company use your | data in the background, rather than "how WhatsApp works ...". | xfz wrote: | I've been resisting the Facebook (including WhatsApp) monopoly | but at personal cost so I'm starting to capitulate. The network | effect has been discussed at length already, but imagine if the | phone system was controlled by a single company and you could | only call customers of the same company! | | For those living in the EU and UK (where GDPR still applies), has | anyone had success with an Article 21 "right to object" request? | For example, objecting to the sharing of data with Facebook when | using WhatsApp. It is not an absolute right, it's supposed to be | depending on individual circumstances so I expect there's lots of | wiggle room for their DPO/legal team to refuse, or just | stonewall. I'd love to be wrong, so please share... | Nextgrid wrote: | > has anyone had success with an Article 21 "right to object" | request | | Facebook breaches the GDPR when it comes to data subject access | requests and appears to get away with it: | https://ruben.verborgh.org/facebook/ so Article 21 is likely to | have the same outcome. Facebook (and other companies) also | breach the GDPR with their non-compliant consent prompts (where | you can't actually decline) when visiting their websites and | also get away with it. | secfirstmd wrote: | _" promoting safety, security and integrity across the Facebook | Company Products, e.g., security systems and fighting spam, | threads, abuse, or infringement activities;"_ | | This particular one is very open ended. Facebook's internal | security team and it's external contractors have internal tools | that use Facebooks App on people's phones to locate, block and | alert if marked individuals are near company premises or high | ranking executives. | | Let's say you protest against Facebook outside their offices, | they could look you up on Facebook, find your account and if you | enter a zone near their office it will send them an alert. | Similarly someone with access to the system can ping your phone | anywhere in the world to find a location with only the very basic | controls present to prevent it from happening. No doubt the | internal teams expand that to include key executives, suppliers | etc. | | In theory they should be logged in to their own account to do | this and not able to ping people in their immediate circles, in | reality no doubt they could probably have a false account to | bypass this. If you think about the power of this. Hundreds of | people with limited oversight free to ping whomever they want as | long as they can create a loose reason to do it. Remember when | the Saudis were paying people with insider access at Twitter, you | could imagine how much the ability of people to ping a FB user | anywhere in the world is worth. Two billion users...The NSA can | only dream of such access. From intelligence targets to lovers to | competitors, hundreds of people have access to this data because | of FB policies and tech. | | At least with FB you don't have to have the app on the phone. | WhatsApp is however essentially the new SMS, it's impossible not | to avoid it...and now slowly slowly FB is retaking control. | | No wonder Brian Acton has gone to Signal. The original vision of | WhatsApp is rapidly being eroded by FB. Yes WhatsApp has e2e but | slowly FB is being FB and looking for return on its investment. | renewiltord wrote: | Honestly, all this is fine. So long as they don't scan the | content - not because I care about that but because I act as if | they have E2EE (which AFAIK from people I know at FB, they do) - | I'm fine. After all, who I talk to isn't a big deal. I just don't | want to be dragnetted into a drug bust because while I don't buy | my drugs on WhatsApp I definitely discuss using them. | 29083011397778 wrote: | Whatsapp is end-to-end encrypted. | | Google Drive backups are not. [1] | | Should the wrong person/people slip up, your messages are no | longer end-to-end encrypted, and are stored on Google's servers | | [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/whatsapp-warns-free-google- | dri... | renewiltord wrote: | Oh that's a good point. | dannyw wrote: | Is this post written to invite a breakup? | gcblkjaidfj wrote: | much better link https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25662215 | harry8 wrote: | This is a tricky problem and there are a few solutions, none of | which are perfect. By far the best one if you can manage it is to | delete your facebook account and apps and never look back. | Encourage whatsapp contacts to move to signal is probably just | annoying for you and them but it seems to be steadily happening, | so make sure you have a signal account. | tolbish wrote: | Looks like group video calling is still a beta feature in | Signal. Would love to know if others find it to be near | Whatsapp quality. | Strs2FillMyDrms wrote: | In my case the only annoying thing is when male friends ask me in | person if I have an Instagram account, it may have pooped as a | recommendation because of this, and I categorically deny it... | they obviously know that it's just for the thirst, but I deny it | nonetheless. | | I think Instagram has an option to not show your number and not | to appear in recommendations, but I'm sure it doesn't work. | doubleorseven wrote: | I've deleted my WhatsApp account 2 months ago even though I also | live in a country where WhatsApp is mandatory. | | How am I doing so far: * I miss a lot of work stuff even though | some update me on the important stuff through Signal. * I lost | contact with friends I can't communicate with anymore. * I feel | that I have more free time to focus on my family and close | friends. Probably because my neighbors can't sneak into my head | with things that don't really effect me. * The frequency I check | my phone dropped by 80%. * Since I closed my instagram account | and Facebook acount 8 years ago, I am now "Zuckerberg free". | | It's hard but It's Worth it. | orange_tee wrote: | I have an empty Facebook profile and use Whatsapp all the time. | The friend suggestions on Facebook that I get are complete | strangers. I don't know how this works but none of my Whatsapp | contacts ever appear as suggestions and none of the suggestions | are people I ever knew. | | I don't know how I managed this. | DisjointedHunt wrote: | Why can't comments on Hacker news follow etiquette of staying on | topic? | | People here respond to the top comment directly with a point | that's not even closely related to the top comment. And then | everyone else follows. | | If you're making a new point that's not gaining from the chained | comments feature or directly conversing/adding on to the person | above you, just create a new comment. | amelius wrote: | We need telecommunication laws like we had in the old days. No | messing with our data. And the ability to migrate to a different | network. | kerng wrote: | Didn't Facebook legally state they will NOT do this when | acquiring WhatsApp- to me it sounds as this can be prohibited and | daily fines with subsequent breakup should be in order. | | Sometimes I wish I had studied law... | asiando wrote: | I only remember the founders publicly promising that WhatsApp | won't be absorbed into Facebook or something like that. I don't | know if they also put it in the legal documents. | rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: | Except for social network effects (larger user base), what are | WhatsApp's advantages vs Signal? | pixiemagic wrote: | Well, that is surely by far the main reason anyone uses any | messaging app. The majority of people don't care about features | or even privacy, and use the app that everyone else is on. In | Europe/the UK at least, that seems to be WhatsApp. Outside of | techie people, if you ask someone to use something like Signal | you'll be met with "why? I already have WhatsApp". | | "larger user base" is an understatement; the difference is | several orders of magnitude. | | (on a personal level, I don't enjoy using WA, but it's | necessary here unless you only communicate within a bubble of | tech workers) | boltzmann_ wrote: | > except for social network effects In the social networks app | world this is all that matters | outime wrote: | The thing with WhatsApp is that besides the largest user base | (most important reason IMHO) it just works very well. I don't | know about Signal as I've briefly used it but why would anyone | switch apart from us? | | You can't just convince the majority of the users with privacy | arguments or even hypothetical extra features from Signal. Only | if WhatsApp would introduce something really annoying (huge | ads, fees, constant technical issues) people would start to | move. But even Telegram which is so much better IMHO (albeit | privacy by default isn't better) will hardly be #1 ever if | nothing of the above happens. | jjbinx007 wrote: | I believe WhatsApp used to charge a small fee a few years | back. | goatinaboat wrote: | They charged $1/year "on paper" but never actually | collected it. That would have been plenty of revenue for | any normal people but they got greedy and realised their | user's private data was worth much much more. | meibo wrote: | Mind that this was before the Facebook buy-out/the | original creators leaving, so I assume strategic | masterminds at FB reversed that pretty quickly. | robertlagrant wrote: | I'm curious to know if when I make some voice/video | calls, and send and receive some data and push | notifications, how far that dollar would really go. | Nextgrid wrote: | At scale, that dollar will go very far. Unmetered | bandwidth is cheap if you look beyond the cloud providers | and the majority of calls can be established directly (in | fact WhatsApp does use UPnP to map ports presumably for | direct connections) so you'd only ever use that bandwidth | for texts/transient media uploads and the small | percentage of calls that can't be established directly | and need to be proxied through. WhatsApp doesn't store | media long-term so storage requirements are also small. | lou1306 wrote: | "They" = Zuckerberg & his minions after acquiring | Whatsapp and falsely promising that no, they wouldn't | dare mining Whatsapp user data or -god forbid!- integrate | WA's backend into FB's. | rakoo wrote: | You can also add Whatsapp founders, who believed | Zuckerberg when he said that Whatsapp was still going to | be independent after being bought. | hocuspocus wrote: | They _did_ charge iOS users a one-time fee, iirc. | | But yes as an early Android adopter, I was a bit | surprised I never had to pay the yearly $1. | nvr219 wrote: | The biggest reason is larger user base. But here are two things | I do in WhatsApp that I can't do in Signal: | | - Share live location. If I need to meet up with somebody, or | let someone know how far away I am and when I'm arriving, I use | share live location. "Share for 1 hour." In Signal you can | share your location at a moment in time but it doesn't update. | | - Broadcast messages ("mass text" basically). In WhatsApp I can | send a message to a list of people without the people on the | list seeing each other (to them it looks like I messaged them | 1:1). In Signal I would have to use a group and all the members | would see each other. | cja wrote: | Almost - they get the little broadcast icon under the message | octorian wrote: | > Share live location | | This can be an extremely useful feature at times, and is also | E2E encrypted with a similar model to group chats (but | modified to allow for lossy delivery). | | > Broadcast messages | | This is one of those interesting features that many people | are completely oblivious to, don't use, and don't understand | why anyone needs. Meanwhile, many other people use it | constantly and simply can't live without it. | thaumasiotes wrote: | > In WhatsApp I can send a message to a list of people | without the people on the list seeing each other | | What's the use case for this? "Happy New Year!"? | nvr219 wrote: | Here are a few: | | 1. I'm on a few "mailing lists" that are delivered via | WhatsApp, like "weekly one-minute sermon" type stuff. | | 2. I have a friends that are all into the same kind of | music but don't know each other. I use broadcast to send | them links to bandcamp, spotify, etc. | | 3. I have a broadcast list for my local friends. If I want | to get rid of something or looking for something ("hey I'm | getting rid of this, do you want it" [photo]) I use that | list. | lxgr wrote: | Yes, or sharing a joke, a recipe, a holiday photo etc. with | friends and family that might not know each other. I don't | use it often, but it's very convenient. | LUmBULtERA wrote: | I was able to get most of my family and friends I regularly | message onto Signal. It has worked great for us. But then -- my | circles are small and few, so it wasn't too hard. I saw no | advantage of WhatsApp after getting them to install Signal. | arximboldi wrote: | As someone that does not have a smartphone, WhatsApp and Signal | are really annoying because they are the two apps that can not | be used without one (even though they have desktop apps). | Telegram and FB Messenger and Hangouts at least can, but here | in Europe WhatsApp is the default for everything and there are | things for which it is becoming almost completely necessary. | | But I simply find the whole chat ecosystem so depressing. A few | years ago at least I could chat with Google Talk people via | Jabber. It is really absurd that instant messaging is not | federated like email. Of course there is one explanation: while | Email was invented in the 70s at research institutions with | goals beyond profit, IM already started in the 90s with | companies trying to capitalize their user-base with vendor | lock-in... (ICQ, MSN, etc.). Sad, sad, sad. | parliament32 wrote: | > It is really absurd that instant messaging is not federated | like email. | | The joke is that it used to be. FB Messanger and Google Chat | had XMPP hooks so you could talk to whatever other platform, | Slack used to have an IRC integration, MSN/AIM/ICQ never | tried too hard to get stop reverse-engineers from putting | their protocols into all-in-one messengers... Then businesses | realized the value of locking in users and becoming walled | gardens. | ralphm wrote: | As far as I know, Facebook Messenger's XMPP support was | only exposed to clients (c2s), not to other XMPP servers | (s2s). Microsoft's Lync (now known as Skype for Business) | supported XMPP federation until 2019. WhatsApp's client | protocol was originally based on XMPP. I'm reasonably sure | that both AIM and Yahoo had XMPP server-to-server support | ready around 2008, but can offer no proof. | derin wrote: | Matrix[1] is trying to solve that issue, I'd highly recommend | looking into it. I actually pipe most of my various "chat" | networks (including WhatsApp) into it via bridges[2]. | | As you said, we in Europe are kind of forced to have WA | installed, but at least you don't have to use it as your | primary client if you don't want to. You can even deploy it | to an Android VM and go completely headless, if you feel the | need. | | [1] https://matrix.org/ | | [2] https://matrix.org/bridges/ | eitland wrote: | > As you said, we in Europe are kind of forced to have WA | installed, but at least you don't have to use it as your | primary client if you don't want to. | | Haven't used WhatsApp for months and then only for a few | days to talk to someone from US. | | My friends were heavy WhatsApp users but we changed one | group after another to Telegram after WhatsApp were | brought. | | Telegram is far from perfect though so I hope to move to | Matrix within a few months. | Timpy wrote: | I'm stepping out of my domain knowledge on this one to start | a discussion, I hope to have my points corrected where I'm | wrong. Another note, I'm not advocating for FB's methods I'm | strictly interested in some cryptography aspects. | | As I understand it, in order to have real end-to-end | encryption (the real stuff, not some marketing term) each | device has to generate a long set of keys and with each | message sent, they cycle through to the next key. If WhatsApp | is doing what it reports it's doing and it actually is end- | to-end encrypted then the web application needs to use your | phone because it needs that set of keys. I'm not sure if it | specifically sends through your phone or if it sends via the | webapp, but you have to use the keys in the correct order or | the device you're contacting won't be able to decrypt the | next message. | rkangel wrote: | Yes, WhatsApp is doing encryption that is E2E between two | devices. That's a good security model. | | There's no particular reason that that has to be two | _phones_ though - could be desktop, wifi tablet etc.. That | limitation is a result of a 'product' decision where your | identity on WhatsApp is a mobile phone number. That | decision was a big part of what allowed WhatsApp to scale | quickly (people didn't need to create an account, just | install the app and start messaging people whose numbers | they had). | arximboldi wrote: | They could allow you to login without a smartphone using | a SMS confirmation code, as many other services do. But I | guess they consider dumbphone users with computers too | much of a niche. | joshspankit wrote: | Exactly to the point: They can implement E2E encryption | in-browser, on dedicated desktop apps, with supported | routers, and basically anywhere. Even $5 microcontrollers | can generate and use the same encryption protocol. | evgen wrote: | But they don't because modern phones have (semi-)secure | enclaves that can hold encryption keys and protect them | from most hacking attempts. Desktops and browsers lack | this, so any conversation you have via these other | platforms in the computing environments of 99.999% of the | population (please spare me the 'I use qubes, so ha!' | speech) has a much lower level of security/privacy. Since | most people want conversation sync among the desktop and | mobile versions this means your security drops to become | the lowest common denominator among all platforms. | | It _can_ be done, but it shouldn 't be done if you | actually care about security or privacy. | joshspankit wrote: | There are valid arguments on all sides of this: | | - That desktop browsers can be less secure | | - That software can work around that | | - That mobile can be more secure | | - That mobile can also be false security as "0 days" are | currently in the wild and mobile phones are typically | always online | | - Etc. | | If you truly want security, there's a really compelling | argument for live-booting a distro like | https://tails.boum.org/ and then rebooting when you're | done. On the other side there are compelling phones such | as the Libre 5 (assuming there are no current 0 days). | evgen wrote: | Tails and purism phones are the same 'I run qubes' | fantasy that I expressly ignored. No one uses these, and | they are not going to ever use those systems. There are | fewer 0-days and CVEs in the mobile environment and for | at least the next five years or so the mobile environment | will always be more secure than desktops. Right now the | single biggest step any 'normal' person can take to | secure their digital life is to throw out their desktop | and live completely on mobile devices and consoles for | gaming. | Closi wrote: | An additional product decision would be that I will | assume headaches are caused if a user starts on desktop | and then decides to move to mobile (Your PC must be on in | order to use this mobile app!). | kevincox wrote: | The real solution here is to generate a second key for | (or securely transmit the original key to) the mobile | device. Now the PC needs to be on to set up the second | device. Once online they are completely independent. | | However whatsapp currently assumes that each user has one | (primary) device and only handles encryption and delivery | to one device. It isn't impossible to fix (example | Matrix) but it does require effort and slightly more | server resources (you need to store messages for longer | on average) | Semaphor wrote: | Everyone who uses WhatsApp has to have a phone. And so they | can still receive and send SMS. That's what I (in Germany) | use for people who insist on using mobile-text communication. | arximboldi wrote: | Yes, same (also in Germany). I survive, can't complain too | much, I prefer the advantages of not having a smartphone. | But for example my neighbours have organized a WhatsApp | group, which is nice, for stuff that goes on in the | building and helping eachother out. There are lots of | examples like that (parents groups at school, etc.) Another | thing I'm noticing is that SMS is becoming less and less | reliable, sometimes the messages not reaching the other | part, particularly when changing country codes... | fsflover wrote: | Why would you replace one centralized system for another? Every | such system gets in trouble once it's too big (in terms of | money and politically). Choose Matrix instead. | dearjames wrote: | Well, in Zimbabwe because of the large user base WhatsApp got | when it initially arrived (due to reduced charges, SMSs where | about 15cents a pop then) around 2011-2012, the ISPs have | effectively made it the only way to communicate economically by | providing a "bundle". | | Basically they offer you a drastically reduced price to only | access WhatsApp, mostly text message without media at that. | Compared to the data plan that can access the whole internet it | is very very cheap to use just WhatsApp. | | The cheapest WhatsApp bundle on the most popular network | (Econet) is currently at around 51cents to text the whole week | (65MB of data) vs the $13 for 8gigs. Granted the 8gigs is for a | month but $13 is a big amount in this part of the world, and | with regular data there's the aspect of discipline to not use | all that data on youtube and other data hungry apps/websites. | tilolebo wrote: | How does this technically work? Does Econet use a dns-based | filter? | corobo wrote: | You can't exclude the one defining reason haha. That's all | there is, other people use it. | nelsonenzo wrote: | Signal unfortunately has limited media support. Otherwise I | would love to have my wife on it. | drcongo wrote: | I've found Signal's media support to be decent (although it | absolutely mangles video). What are you missing? | nelsonenzo wrote: | multi-photo attachments and video. | [deleted] | rattray wrote: | In the past I found signal to be less slick and reliable than | whatsapp, but hopefully that's no longer true | simias wrote: | Signal UI is mediocre. I want it to succeed, but both WhatsApp | and Telegram are simply a lot more convenient to use. | | WA and Telegram have a pure web client when you want to quickly | have access to your chats without installing anything. | | If you decide to install the standalone clients you'll find | that Telegram is vastly ahead of Signal. You can change the | spellchecking language and add dictionaries, you have a lot | more options for formatting messages (code blocks etc...), it | deals better with multimedia content like inline audio, it's a | lot faster and less resource-hungry. | | The only reason I still bother with Signal is because I know | that, in theory, from a security perspective it's the better of | the three. In practice it's by far the worst though. | drcongo wrote: | This post sums up my feelings exactly. Signal is objectively | ugly and has quite a lot of display bugs that there's really | no excuse for in a messaging app. Telegram is (subjectively) | beautiful - they really nailed the UI - and is by far the | nicest to use of the three. WhatsApp is both hideous and | horrible to use. I wish I could drag people away from it, but | even having had my WhatsApp status set to "WhatsApp is | spyware, message me on Telegram" for the past 3 years, not a | single person has switched. | screamingninja wrote: | > Signal is objectively ugly | | That's a weird thing to say. How is anything objectively | ugly? It is a matter of opinion after all. | Atariman wrote: | I would recommend Threema. It's been recently open-sourced and | has the most secure encryption mechanism. | | https://threema.ch/en/open-source | drcongo wrote: | I had Threema installed but not set up so your comment | prompted me to set it up and I don't think they could have | come up with a more confusing setup if they'd tried. | | First screen asked me to wiggle my finger on the screen | without offering any explanation. Second screen gave me a | random string and told me that's my ID. Third screen asked me | to add a password for Threema Safe, whatever that is. I then | couldn't leave that screen at all because the on-screen | keyboard covered over the next button, and the one big green | button that was visible did nothing. Eventually I | accidentally swiped and got to another screen that asked me | what Threema Safe I wanted to use, like I have any idea what | a Threema Safe is. After that it asked me to put in a | username, even though I already have a Threema ID from | several screens ago. Then it asked for my phone number. So | now it has a Threema ID, a phone number and a username and I | have to guess which of those is useful. Then it asked me to | sync my contacts, I didn't do that. Finally, I got to a | screen with a QR code, my nickname, my Threema ID, something | asking me to Enter Code for Linked Number, and a Key | Fingerprint. This thing bears only a passing resemblance to a | messaging app. | | Most of that setup I kind of understand, but then I'm the | sort of person who reads HN. There is not a hope in hell of | getting even 1% of the people I know to even make it through | the setup process though. | | Once inside, I apparently have one contact called ECHOECHO | who, when I message them, repeat the message back to me. The | messaging UI is slightly nicer than Signal and WhatsApp's | though, but not as nice as Telegram's. | Atariman wrote: | You're right, the UI maybe could have been a bit more | intuitive. However, the setup is far from rocket science | and could easily be improved by the developers. | | And yeah, it may only have 1% of users but thats's only | because 95% have WA... It's a choice about freedom and you | have to start somewhere. I converted more than 50% of my | contacts to Threema - the rest has expensive phones but | obviously no money to protect their privacy. | mimimi31 wrote: | I bought Threema a few years ago, but have since replaced all | the Google services on my phone with microG, which | unfortunately means that Threema's licence verification | doesn't work any more. Having such a hard dependency on | proprietary Google software is a big minus in my book. | | >(Threema) has the most secure encryption mechanism | | Can you elaborate on that? How is it better than what Signal | and Whatsapp use? | Atariman wrote: | Here is an interesting overview: | https://www.securemessagingapps.com/ | | An awesome feature for me is this (from their FAQ): The | dots are an indicator for a contact's verification level. | They don't affect the encryption strength, but are a | measure for the probability, that the saved public key of a | contact belongs indeed to that contact. | | Level 1 (red): The ID and public key have been obtained | from the server because you received a message from this | contact for the first time or added the ID manually. No | matching contact was found in your address book (by phone | number or email), and therefore you cannot be sure that the | person is who they claim to be in their messages. | | Level 2 (orange): The ID has been matched with a contact in | your address book (by phone number or email). Since the | server verifies phone numbers and email addresses, you can | be reasonably sure that the person is who they claim to be. | | Level 2 (blue): This verification level is only available | in Threema Work; it indicates that the Threema ID belongs | to an internal company contact. | | Level 3 (green): You have personally verified the ID and | public key of the person by scanning their QR code. | Assuming their device has not been hijacked, you can be | very sure that messages from this contact were really | written by the person that they indicate. | | Level 3 (blue): This verification level is only available | in Threema Work; it indicates that the Threema ID belongs | to an internal contact whose ID and public key you have | verified by scanning their QR code. | TimWolla wrote: | You can buy Threema within their store if you can't or | don't want to use Google Play Services: | https://shop.threema.ch/ | uppsalax wrote: | There was the same debate over Whatsapp vs Telegram clash. | | The fact here is that network effects play a big role in these | kind of business models. | | Moreover think about the fact that whatsapp was one of the | first entrants, and was bought by Mark Zuckerberg. Brand is | another big player when we consider and analyse that | competitive landscape... | | Security is one of the most important factors nowadays, | especially if we consider the data breaches number, that is | increasing dramatically (600% since covid-19 outbreak). But are | like p2p models, if there aren't many people to create traffic, | it isn't worth it (for the moment at least). And in case of | messaging apps these people must be your friends! (Word-of- | mouth) | | Do not misunderstand me, I am 100% for security and privacy, | but here users are driven by other factors unfortunately. | Closi wrote: | In the UK I don't know a person without WhatsApp, pretty much | everyone uses it. I don't know a single person who has signal. | | If I say to a friend "I'll message you on WhatsApp" they will | be like "ok great". | | If I say to a friend "I'll message you on Signal" they will be | like "What is that? Oh I have to download something? Don't you | have WhatsApp? Screw it just send me a text." | | So you can't really say "Apart from larger user base why do | people use it?". It's like saying "Apart from an inability to | breathe, why don't people live underwater?" | type0 wrote: | > It's like saying "Apart from an inability to breathe, why | don't people live underwater?" | | Because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_habitat | tommyage wrote: | I just informed all my important contacts about the deletion | of my whats app account per this message and told them my | substitution. | | All people who are important to me migrated. Some refused for | a long time for no reason, but in the end installed a | separate app alongside WA. | | But I get your position: Judging by the amount of unfair | usability and amount of third parties involved in any co.uk- | domain, it appears to me that the common folk gives a shit | about it over there. However, I wont get any site a visit who | does the above. There are alternatives to gain information. | tinus_hn wrote: | In most markets, almost everyone has a WhatsApp account. I | don't have a Signal account and nobody ever asked for it. | neals wrote: | What annoys me to no end is that I was Whatsapping with a local | restaurant for food delivery during the lockdown and two days | later, the owner pops up in my Facebook "suggested friends" list. | nashashmi wrote: | Could be that the person you contacted has their information | totally open to FB | 2sk21 wrote: | This sounds right. WhatsApp and Facebook both have access to | contacts so information flows between them through this | channel | jtsiskin wrote: | I think the most likely explanation for this is | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias | neals wrote: | Or is it your confirmation bias where you expect people to | distrust Facebook for the wrong reasons so that you can post | that link? | | Because funnily enough, I didn't place blame in my comment. I | just pointed out my 'annoyance'. You, on the other hand, | concluded something from that. Ironically. | timvisee wrote: | Also: https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/security-and-privacy/how- | we... | jraby3 wrote: | This page is not available in my country. | murki wrote: | Not available for me in Mexico either. | perlgeek wrote: | Pasting the contents here: | | How we work with the Facebook Companies | | In this article, we are providing additional information to | our users in the European Region. What are the Facebook | Companies? | | WhatsApp is one of the Facebook Companies. The Facebook | Companies include, among others, Facebook, Facebook | Technologies, and WhatsApp, and together offer the Facebook | Company Products. Why does WhatsApp share information with | the Facebook Companies? | | WhatsApp works and shares information with the other Facebook | Companies to receive services like infrastructure, | technology, and systems that help us provide and improve | WhatsApp and to keep WhatsApp and the other Facebook | Companies safe and secure. When we receive services from the | Facebook Companies, the information we share with them is | used to help WhatsApp in accordance with our instructions. | Working together allows us for example to: | Provide you fast and reliable messaging and calls around the | world and understand how our Services and features are | performing. Ensure safety, security, and | integrity across WhatsApp and the Facebook Company Products | by removing spam accounts and combating abusive activity. | Connect your WhatsApp experience with Facebook Company | Products. | | Today, Facebook does not use your WhatsApp account | information to improve your Facebook product experiences or | provide you more relevant Facebook ad experiences on | Facebook. We're always working on new ways to improve how you | experience WhatsApp and the other Facebook Company Products | you use. We'll keep you updated on new experiences we offer | and our data practices. What information does WhatsApp share | with the Facebook Companies? | | In order to receive services from the Facebook Companies, | WhatsApp shares the information we have about you as | described in the "Information We Collect" section of the | Privacy Policy. For example, to provide WhatsApp with | analytics services, Facebook processes the phone number you | verified when you signed up for WhatsApp, some of your device | information (your device identifiers associated with the same | device or account, operating system version, app version, | platform information, your mobile country code and network | code, and flags to enable tracking of the update acceptance | and control choices), and some of your usage information | (when you last used WhatsApp and the date you first | registered your account, and the types and frequency of your | features usage) on WhatsApp's behalf and in accordance with | our instructions. | | WhatsApp also shares information with other Facebook | Companies when this is necessary for the purpose of promoting | safety, security, and integrity across the Facebook | Companies. This includes the sharing of information that | enables Facebook and the other Facebook Companies to | determine whether a certain WhatsApp user is also using other | Facebook Company Products, and to assess whether the other | Facebook Companies need to take action, either against such | user or to protect them. For example, WhatsApp could share | the information that is necessary to enable Facebook to also | take action against an identified spammer on Facebook, such | as information on the incident(s) as well as the phone number | they verified when they signed up for WhatsApp or device | identifiers associated with the same device or account. Any | such transfer is carried out in accordance with the "Our | Legal Basis For Processing Data" section of the Privacy | Policy. How is my WhatsApp information used by the Facebook | Companies? To receive services that will | help WhatsApp operate, improve, and develop our business. | When WhatsApp shares information with the Facebook Companies | in these ways, the Facebook Companies act as service | providers and the information we share with them is used to | help WhatsApp in accordance with our instructions. | We share information with the other Facebook Companies as | service providers. Service providers help companies like | WhatsApp by providing infrastructure, technologies, systems, | tools, information, and expertise to help us provide and | improve the WhatsApp service for our users. | This enables us, for example, to understand how our Services | are being used, and how it compares to usage across the | Facebook Companies. By sharing information with the other | Facebook Companies, such as the phone number you verified | when you signed up for WhatsApp and the last time your | account was used, we may be able to work out whether or not a | particular WhatsApp account belongs to someone who also uses | another service in the Facebook Companies. This allows us to | more accurately report information about our Services and to | improve our Services. So, for example, we can then understand | how people use WhatsApp services compared to their use of | other apps or services in the other Facebook Companies, which | in turn helps WhatsApp to explore potential features or | product improvements. We can also count how many unique users | WhatsApp has, for example, by establishing which of our users | do not use any other Facebook apps and how many unique users | there are across the Facebook Companies. This will help | WhatsApp more completely report the activity on our service, | including to investors and regulators. It | also helps WhatsApp as we explore ways to build a sustainable | business. For example, as we previously announced, we're | exploring ways for people and businesses to communicate using | WhatsApp, and this could include working with the other | Facebook Companies to help people find businesses they're | interested in and communicate with via WhatsApp. In this way, | Facebook could enable users to communicate via WhatsApp with | businesses they find on Facebook. To keep | WhatsApp and other Facebook family services safe and secure. | We share information with the other Facebook Companies in | accordance with the "Our Legal Basis For Processing Data" | section of the Privacy Policy, and vice versa, to help fight | spam and abuse on our Services, help keep them secure, and | promote safety, security, and integrity on and off our | Services. So if, for example, any member of the Facebook | Companies discovers that someone is using its services for | illegal purposes, it can disable their account and notify the | other Facebook Companies so that they can also consider doing | the same. In this way, we only share information for this | purpose in relation to users that have first been identified | as having violated our Terms of Service or threatened the | safety or security of our users or others, about which other | members of our family of companies should be warned. | To keep WhatsApp and other Facebook Companies' services safe | and secure, we need to understand which accounts across the | Facebook Companies relate to the same user, so we can take | appropriate action when we identify a user who violates our | Terms of Services or presents a safety or security threat to | others. We do not share data for improving | Facebook products on Facebook and providing more relevant | Facebook ad experiences. Today, Facebook does not | use your WhatsApp account information to improve your | Facebook product experiences or provide you more relevant | Facebook ad experiences on Facebook. This is a result of | discussions with the Irish Data Protection Commission and | other Data Protection Authorities in Europe. We're always | working on new ways to improve how you experience WhatsApp | and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Should we | choose to share such data with the Facebook Companies for | this purpose in the future, we will only do so when we reach | an understanding with the Irish Data Protection Commission on | a future mechanism to enable such use. We'll keep you updated | on new experiences we offer and our information practices. | | Whose WhatsApp information is shared with the Facebook | Companies for these purposes? | | We share information for all WhatsApp users if they choose to | use our Services. This may include those WhatsApp users who | are not Facebook users because we need to have the ability to | share information for all of our users, if necessary, in | order to be able to receive valuable services from the | Facebook Companies and fulfill the important purposes | described in our Privacy Policy and this article. | | In all cases, we share the minimum amount of information that | is needed to fulfill these purposes. We also ensure that the | information we share is up to date, so if you choose to | update your WhatsApp phone number, for example, that number | will also be updated by the members of the Facebook family | who have received it from us. | | Importantly, WhatsApp does not share your WhatsApp contacts | with Facebook or any other members of the Facebook Companies | for use for their own purposes, and there are no plans to do | so. What choices do I have about the Facebook Companies' use | of my WhatsApp information? | | You can always stop using our Services and delete your | account through the in-app Delete My Account feature. | Deleting your WhatsApp account will not affect your ability | to continue using other apps and services offered by the | other Facebook Companies, just as deleting your Facebook | account, for example, will not affect your ability to | continue using WhatsApp. Please see WhatsApp's Privacy Policy | for further information on what happens when you delete your | WhatsApp account. | timvisee wrote: | Weird! Maybe it's European specific. | utf_8x wrote: | Once again - Signal[0] as an alternative. It's fully Open-Source | (including the backend) and their crypto is public and | independently verified[1][2][3]... | | [0] https://signal.org/en/ | | [1] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software)#Encryption_p... | | [2] https://threatpost.com/signal-audit-reveals-protocol- | cryptog... | | [3] https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1013.pdf [PDF] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-01-06 23:01 UTC)