Whats app new privacy terms Feb 8th agree or leave.

[the tribester]

It wasn't that long ago when no-one had WhatsApp either. They'll soon migrate if it's any good.

My mate has just ditched WhatsApp because he didn't want FB to have his info. Surely all his mates who have WhatsApp and have him stored in their phones and have said yes to 'access contacts' means FB will have his info from their records already.

[Corso Marche]

I moved abroad 8-9 years ago, and had been using it for a long time before that, so you might be surprised how long people have been using it. Since moving abroad it's been the only app which is widely used across many countries and regions. Nothing else comes close.
I'd prefer it wasn't that way, but let's see what happens. My gut says not enough will remove it to bolster the likes of Signal to mainstream use by most of the populace.

[Durzel]

Corso Marche said:

I've Telegram and WhatsApp on my phone. Up until now I'd blocked Telegram from accessing my contacts as it's only used to receive updates and bulletins.
But just now I shrugged my shoulders and gave it access to my contacts. I was surprised to see 40 of my contacts active on Telegram. Unfortunately only 1 out of that 40 is somebody I contact with any frequency.
But that's 40 out of 917 contacts. Everybody is on WhatsApp currently. Dropping it means little when everybody else is on it and you've made yourself harder to reach by removing WhatsApp. It's difficult enough for people to get their heads around the fact I don't use FB or Messenger.

Chicken and egg problem really.

WhatsApp has a lot of inertia. The company I work for has a WhatsApp group for everyone, where various updates are communicated instead of via emails. Most casual contacts I've had with people has been on either WhatsApp or FB Messenger. Girls in particular seem to be all about FB Messenger, I guess because of the integration with Instagram and Facebook itself (I believe it is an all in one product now).

There's no question that Signal, Telegram, etc could grow, but one wonders whether they would outright replace WhatsApp when the majority of people using it are indifferent or uninformed about the scope of the data they are sharing.

[camel_landy]

Durzel said:

Chicken and egg problem really.

WhatsApp has a lot of inertia. The company I work for has a WhatsApp group for everyone, where various updates are communicated. Most casual contacts I've had with people has been on either WhatsApp or FB Messenger.

There's no question that Signal, Telegram, etc could grow, but one wonders whether they would outright replace WhatsApp when the majority of people using it are indifferent or uninformed about the scope of the data they are sharing.

It wasn't so long ago that people were using 'Yahoo!' as a search engine and 'Internet Explorer' was the browser of choice... Anyone remember 'Friends Reunited'?

M

[dudleybloke]

And anyone who was anyone had to have a MySpace page.

[Far Cough]

Same for me...... Installed Signal and a massive 2 of my contacts have it so I guess it will be a long time before it takes off. Wattsapp is the app of choice and clicking a box for new T&C`s will have zero tangible effect for 99.9% of users.

If they suddenly started charging or started putting adverts in the program, people would jump ship far more quickly. I`m more than happy to be convinced wattsapp is bad for my health ???

[Durzel]

The Social Dilemma is a good watch (imo) on Netflix, its a documentary about the various social media platforms and how engagement is their currency, the power they have to shape narratives, etc.

Facebook, WhatsApp et al have no reason to start charging for things really simply because the data mining is more valuable to them than any subscription cost, etc. You don't even really have to delve very deep to consider that whilst Facebook is free at the point of entry for practically everyone, it also makes billions of dollars in revenue. The reason for that is obvious - data and access to it.

[irocfan]

Far Cough said:

Same for me...... Installed Signal and a massive 2 of my contacts have it so I guess it will be a long time before it takes off. Wattsapp is the app of choice and clicking a box for new T&C`s will have zero tangible effect for 99.9% of users.

I guess one of the issues is that if you don't dispose of whatsap before it all goes live they get to keep all the data already mined/taken and there appears not to be a whole lot you can do about it.... That said it'll be interesting to see where the European data-protection laws take us with regard to this

[number2]

irocfan said:

Far Cough said:

Same for me...... Installed Signal and a massive 2 of my contacts have it so I guess it will be a long time before it takes off. Wattsapp is the app of choice and clicking a box for new T&C`s will have zero tangible effect for 99.9% of users.

I guess one of the issues is that if you don't dispose of whatsap before it all goes live they get to keep all the data already mined/taken and there appears not to be a whole lot you can do about it.... That said it'll be interesting to see where the European data-protection laws take us with regard to this

The updated terms aren't applied to UK and EU users.

Someone raised the question of what happens if one has international contacts in WhatsApp - well I guess they'll know the international contact knows someone in the UK. Read the new terms.

[xyz123]

https://news.sky.com/story/whatsapp-is-updating-it...

As per this, there is no change in data exchanged wirh Facebook and the change is only for "business communications" whatever that means...

I am really struggling to see what more they would know that Google doesn't know...I am sure devil is in the detail but in real life I genuinely can't see what this changes.. Its not as if they are going to look into my bank account..

[Corso Marche]

There's one grey area I see which I expect WhatsApp/FB to let ride for a while and then in a few years time go "ooh, yes, well y'see, umm, those conditions did inadvertently result in our gathering, processing, and storing of personal users data over a period of time without recognising their specific citizenship and rights. We are now adding additional processes to prevent this happening in the future."

UK and EU citizens have stronger protection rights than most other countries. The legislation is extra-territorial, which means that no matter where a company is based/operating from or where that citizen lives their privacy rights are enforceable. However, WhatsApp will claim they have no way to identify a person's nationality or citizenship.
This was obvious to me in recent weeks. We live abroad, and for the easy life I have WhatsApp registered to my local number - it's just easier because if you supply a contact number people expect it to be local. On the other-hand, my wife still uses her 'home' phone number for WhatsApp (even though it causes some confusion for both businesses/personal contacts). She received two notices from WhatsApp in recent weeks -- one for the T&C's applicable to UK or EU citizens, and the other a notice of the new changes and shared info across FB services. I however only received one notice, as my WhatsApp is registered to a local number. So they've automatically identified me as a local, and have no way of recognising what country I might hold a passport from and be a citizen of, which is what ultimately decides how they should be handling my data.

(Of course the flip side of that is when we move I'll just junk the WhatsApp account and create a new one on a new number and start afresh.)

[Far Cough]

This is all very fascinating about data mining and acquisition but in order to try and break it down to the brass tacks , what actual daily effect to me will this change make ?

Is wattsapp clever enough to see that a person is also using another competitors app on their device ??

[KingofKong]

I think the important thing to focus on here is that the actual contents of the encrypted messages themselves cannot be read by anybody other than the person at the other end.

If you are worried about what data is being held about you then simply go to settings, account, request account info and see if you think the data is anything other than dull.

[camel_landy]

Far Cough said:

This is all very fascinating about data mining and acquisition but in order to try and break it down to the brass tacks , what actual daily effect to me will this change make ?

Is wattsapp clever enough to see that a person is also using another competitors app on their device ??

I think you're approaching this wrong. You won't see anything from day 1 and if they're doing things right, you probably won't see any impact other than advertising & sponsored links becoming more targeted.

Unfortunately, it's sounding like you're a perfect example of why these organisations can do what they do. The answer isn't binary... As they're hoovering up as much data as they can get away with, we won't know there's a problem until after the event. At that point, it will be too late, the horse has bolted.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.


Although not specifically WhatsApp, here's an example of how data being used for 'good' has the potential to go 'bad': Fingerprints / Biometrics.

We have started to use biometrics to secure our devices, it's convenient, our fingerprints are pretty unique and it's a great way of personalising our security rather than having to remember a password or PIN. Have you considered how that fingerprint is stored, secured and the implications if it is 'cracked'? PINs & passwords can be changed... Your biometrics can't.

M

[camel_landy]

KingofKong said:

I think the important thing to focus on here is that the actual contents of the encrypted messages themselves cannot be read by anybody other than the person at the other end.

I think you're missing the point... The metadata is just as valuable (possibly more so) than the content of any message.

...and just as a little aside to ponder on: The messages are only encrypted IN TRANSIT, once on the device, they are decrypted.

M

[KingofKong]

camel_landy said:

I think you're missing the point... The metadata is just as valuable (possibly more so) than the content of any message.

...and just as a little aside to ponder on: The messages are only encrypted IN TRANSIT, once on the device, they are decrypted.

M

I get what you're saying, but for 99.9% of people using Whatsapp they will be more concerned about the contents of the messages being read than the metadata.

I've looked at my data, there's really not much there of any interest, maybe my contacts data, who are nearly all on social media anyway.

Of course messages are decrypted at the other end, it would be a little pointless if they weren't. It's up to the end user to keep their phone secure and pass/pin coded once received.

But like I said earlier, I have nothing to hide, nothing of any interest and keep my wife's nudie's somewhere safe.

[camel_landy]

Horse... Water... Drink...

M

[Durzel]

camel_landy said:

Horse... Water... Drink...

M

Just because you feel a certain way about your privacy, and your data, it doesn't necessarily mean you are objectively correct and that someone else who is not bothered about anything but the content of their messages being known is "wrong". There are plenty of views to be taken about all of this, across the spectrum, and so long as its informed, none are invalid.

[camel_landy]

Durzel said:

camel_landy said:

Horse... Water... Drink...

M

Just because you feel a certain way about your privacy, and your data, it doesn't necessarily mean you are objectively correct and that someone else who is not bothered about anything but the content of their messages being known is "wrong". There are plenty of views to be taken about all of this, across the spectrum, and so long as its informed, none are invalid.

I didn't say it was wrong... We're saying the same thing, just using different language.

I've provided information (Water) but if they want to follow a different path (Drink), I can't force them.

M

[Durzel]

camel_landy said:

Durzel said:

camel_landy said:

Horse... Water... Drink...

M

Just because you feel a certain way about your privacy, and your data, it doesn't necessarily mean you are objectively correct and that someone else who is not bothered about anything but the content of their messages being known is "wrong". There are plenty of views to be taken about all of this, across the spectrum, and so long as its informed, none are invalid.

I didn't say it was wrong... We're saying the same thing, just using different language.

I've provided information (Water) but if they want to follow a different path (Drink), I can't force them.

M

Fair dos.. the "you can lead a horse to water but can't make them drink" phrase does, in my mind, have a negative connotation in so much as the "water" is plainly meant to mean something positive, and choosing not to drink it is an abnormal act.

Maybe that's me overreading it.