Setting the record straight(blog.whatsapp.com)
blog.whatsapp.com
Setting the record straight
http://blog.whatsapp.com/index.php/2014/03/setting-the-record-straight/
31 comments
The post didn't ease my concerns either. To further extend your last point, I don't understand why FB would spend so much acquiring whataspp if they didn't plan to mine the data. I told my friends to expect targeted FB ads based on our whatsapp convos in the future.
95% of WhatApp's messages don't event hit a disk and are served from memory. It would take big architectural changes to be able to mine them. (info from the erlang factory slides)
That's an interesting stat. How do you think FB will get an ROI on the 19B ?
EDIT: Also, do you think FB would/could man-in-the-middle the traffic a la NSA? No architectural changes to whatsapp are needed. FB could save and fwd the traffic. Crunch later.
EDIT: Also, do you think FB would/could man-in-the-middle the traffic a la NSA? No architectural changes to whatsapp are needed. FB could save and fwd the traffic. Crunch later.
It could be the difficult to quantify ROI of strategic benefit from keeping it out of the hands of Apple, Google, MSFT, etc
$19B, to keep competition at bay, rather than use it to innovate? When your main product is advertising? Silicon Valley is circling the drain...
[deleted]
See Microsoft and Skype for proof that lots of resources fixes these "problems" quickly.
Speculation to the contrary isn’t just baseless and unfounded, it’s irresponsible.
Easy now, you got bought by Facebook. Whatsapp may be retaining it's autonomy (for now), but the speculation that your messaging/other business records would be hooked into the greater Facebook data hoover was ANYTHING BUT baseless, unfounded or irresponsible.
Facebook's business model involves very heavy user surveillance. I'm not even saying that pejoratively, that's just how they operate. C'mon son!
Easy now, you got bought by Facebook. Whatsapp may be retaining it's autonomy (for now), but the speculation that your messaging/other business records would be hooked into the greater Facebook data hoover was ANYTHING BUT baseless, unfounded or irresponsible.
Facebook's business model involves very heavy user surveillance. I'm not even saying that pejoratively, that's just how they operate. C'mon son!
...speculation that your messaging/other business records would be hooked into the greater Facebook data hoover was ANYTHING BUT baseless, unfounded or irresponsible.
Indeed, it's entirely reasonable. It's not what's in WhatsApp's DNA that make people deduce this - it's what's in their new parent's.
Indeed, it's entirely reasonable. It's not what's in WhatsApp's DNA that make people deduce this - it's what's in their new parent's.
> Facebook's business model involves very heavy user surveillance.
By surveillance you mean analyzing data their users voluntarily upload to their social network...so they can make money?
By surveillance you mean analyzing data their users voluntarily upload to their social network...so they can make money?
Yes, surveillance. The clarification I made in my previous post was meant to avoid exactly this tangent.
> If partnering with Facebook meant that we had to change our values, we wouldn’t have done it.
_
/•\
/ \
/ \
+---------------------+
| |
| |
| |
| I want to believe |
| |
| |
| |
+---------------------+
F. MulderJan Kaum tells an interesting story. Unfortunately, those are all empty words.
This is the exact difference between privacy-by-policy as opposed to privacy-by-design. If WhatsApp truly wants to make good on its promise, it must deploy real end-to-end encryption such that it can never be in a position to be strong-armed into disclosing personal data, neither by stockholders nor by the government.
It's a shame that they are under the thumb of StaziBook, which will never actually deploy privacy respecting features, since that kind of goes against their business of mining and controlling the data of every single human on this planet.
This is the exact difference between privacy-by-policy as opposed to privacy-by-design. If WhatsApp truly wants to make good on its promise, it must deploy real end-to-end encryption such that it can never be in a position to be strong-armed into disclosing personal data, neither by stockholders nor by the government.
It's a shame that they are under the thumb of StaziBook, which will never actually deploy privacy respecting features, since that kind of goes against their business of mining and controlling the data of every single human on this planet.
> It's a shame that they are under the thumb of StaziBook
Is that a colored reference to Facebook? Did you refer to Microsoft as "M$" in previous times? A bit childish and detracts from your otherwise insightful comment.
note: I have a pretty much dormant FB account, and run Face-blocker software on all my browsers to avoid it's panopticon.
Is that a colored reference to Facebook? Did you refer to Microsoft as "M$" in previous times? A bit childish and detracts from your otherwise insightful comment.
note: I have a pretty much dormant FB account, and run Face-blocker software on all my browsers to avoid it's panopticon.
It's a poignant story that the author has such personal reasons for his interest in privacy, but the bottom line is that WhatsApp has an absolutely horrible track record of security.
Security is one area in which I generally don't give people the benefit of the doubt (the burden of proof is on them), and so far, WhatsApp has not done much to prove their trustworthiness[0] in this regard.
[0] Trust encompasses both intent and ability/execution - if either one is lacking, the trust fails.
Security is one area in which I generally don't give people the benefit of the doubt (the burden of proof is on them), and so far, WhatsApp has not done much to prove their trustworthiness[0] in this regard.
[0] Trust encompasses both intent and ability/execution - if either one is lacking, the trust fails.
> Above all else, I want to make sure you understand how deeply I value the principle of private communication.
How deeply? Enough to implement proper end to end encryption? Otherwise, you're just paying lip service to "privacy", just like Facebook and others are. They all say "we value your privacy greatly", but track and mine every single thing you do or say. The facts don't match the words in almost every case.
So show us how much you value our privacy. Implement end to end encryption (by default, obviously - don't pull a Telegram).
How deeply? Enough to implement proper end to end encryption? Otherwise, you're just paying lip service to "privacy", just like Facebook and others are. They all say "we value your privacy greatly", but track and mine every single thing you do or say. The facts don't match the words in almost every case.
So show us how much you value our privacy. Implement end to end encryption (by default, obviously - don't pull a Telegram).
That's all nice and dandy and I don't have reason to doubt the noble stance of the founders, but what is the opinion on privacy of the new owner of WhatsApp?
Anyone who has ever sold a business (or part of it) knows that new owners exercise control and it's their legally enforceable right to do so.
Anyone who has ever sold a business (or part of it) knows that new owners exercise control and it's their legally enforceable right to do so.
Translation: Please do not move to the next WhatsApp clone to become popular. It would be really bad for Facebook and WhatsApp if the 450 million users switched to a new app overnight.
This post fails to explain the value of Whatsapp to facebook at a very basic level. If everything about privacy in this post is correct, what exactly is facebook getting out of this deal? They paid 19B for Whatsapp, and are not going to collect any data on the users? How does that make any financial sense?
Appeals to emotion regarding the KGB are great, but you cannot convince me that a company the size of facebook would donate 19B to Whatsapp and expect nothing in return. Furthermore, having been acquired by facebook does not constitute a "partnership", since the decision making power of the founders has quite literally been sold off to the highest bidder.
Appeals to emotion regarding the KGB are great, but you cannot convince me that a company the size of facebook would donate 19B to Whatsapp and expect nothing in return. Furthermore, having been acquired by facebook does not constitute a "partnership", since the decision making power of the founders has quite literally been sold off to the highest bidder.
You could pretend they were perceived as a threat for Facebook and Facebook just bought the peace of knowing they have no remotely significant threat other than Google+.
Although, knowing Facebook, I have a really hard time just taking this guy's word for it. I won't be installing Whatsapp until it's both free software and has end-to-end encryption. I'll tolerate it being centralized because Facebook/NSA having our metadata would be acceptable while we wait for a better alternative.
Although, knowing Facebook, I have a really hard time just taking this guy's word for it. I won't be installing Whatsapp until it's both free software and has end-to-end encryption. I'll tolerate it being centralized because Facebook/NSA having our metadata would be acceptable while we wait for a better alternative.
This is a nice sentiment but how meaningful is it now that whatsapp is owned by facebook? Jan Koum may use the word "Partnership" to describe the Facebook/Whatsapp relationship but they didn't start a foundation or go in on an open source project together - Facebook bought Whatsapp.
>If partnering with Facebook meant that we had to change our values, we wouldn’t have done it.
Doesn't the obligation to the shareholders and investors to make as much return on the investment trump any values the founders may have?
In other words, doesn't the business have to be showing that it's doing the right thing to their investors? Where the right thing means getting NINETEEN Billion dollars.
Edits: Another way of wording my question would be: Could they really have actually said "no" to them, and gotten away with it?
Doesn't the obligation to the shareholders and investors to make as much return on the investment trump any values the founders may have?
In other words, doesn't the business have to be showing that it's doing the right thing to their investors? Where the right thing means getting NINETEEN Billion dollars.
Edits: Another way of wording my question would be: Could they really have actually said "no" to them, and gotten away with it?
Also, getting bought out is not the same thing as "partnering with".
A partnership can be dissolved by either party. Facebook owns WhatsApp.
A partnership can be dissolved by either party. Facebook owns WhatsApp.
>The fact that we couldn’t speak freely without the fear that our communications would be monitored by KGB is in part why we moved to the United States when I was a teenager.
>Respect for your privacy is coded into our DNA
It is not respect for the user's privacy that keeps the NSA, the FSB or any other agency from listening to, storing or censoring your user's communications. Respect for privacy is a good principle, but if the technology does not reflect the principle, it's there only to make some people (founders, employees, investors, customers and users) feel better.
>Respect for your privacy is coded into our DNA
It is not respect for the user's privacy that keeps the NSA, the FSB or any other agency from listening to, storing or censoring your user's communications. Respect for privacy is a good principle, but if the technology does not reflect the principle, it's there only to make some people (founders, employees, investors, customers and users) feel better.
What value does Whatsapp have for Facebook if FB cannot mine the users for data?
What's the point of buying whatsapp? How does FB make money from those users?
What's the point of buying whatsapp? How does FB make money from those users?
What about the data Whatsapp does collect? Like other people's phone numbers. What happens with that within Facebook?
And of course being principled about not tracking or getting more information than necessary and then partnering with the company that does nothing but just that is a bit perplexing to me.
And of course being principled about not tracking or getting more information than necessary and then partnering with the company that does nothing but just that is a bit perplexing to me.
I really like the founder's sentiment, and the fact that it ties into his personal experience makes it more believable. However, the only real way to stick it to Facebook anymore is to stop using WhatsApp - they paid $35.56 for you, and they're not getting a refund.
> None of that data has ever been collected and stored by WhatsApp, and we really have no plans to change that.
Just because WhatsApp has no plans today doesn't make plans to exercise it tomorrow less viable.
Just because WhatsApp has no plans today doesn't make plans to exercise it tomorrow less viable.
It seems incredibly disingenuous to assert that WhatsApp won't collect personal data while sidestepping the question of what happens when WhatsApp identities become correlated with Facebook accounts.
Wow, that is extremely misleading and manipulative, especially with the "I'm from the Ukraine" anecdote.
They're not "partnering with", they're being bought. And as a result, they will owned by a company with zero respect for privacy, located in a country with little respect for privacy and the weakest privacy protections in the Western hemisphere. A company who's very core business model exclusively consists of selling their user's privacy to third parties.
WhatsApp's guarantees are worth exactly zero. At best, they are merely honest intentions, but formulated in such a misleading way that they become untrustworthy from the start.
They're not "partnering with", they're being bought. And as a result, they will owned by a company with zero respect for privacy, located in a country with little respect for privacy and the weakest privacy protections in the Western hemisphere. A company who's very core business model exclusively consists of selling their user's privacy to third parties.
WhatsApp's guarantees are worth exactly zero. At best, they are merely honest intentions, but formulated in such a misleading way that they become untrustworthy from the start.
For someone who grew up in the shadow of the KGB, the post's author engages in some pretty blatant doublespeak using the word "partnership" to characterize a relationship which is wholly one-sided.
> Make no mistake: our future partnership with Facebook will not compromise the vision that brought us to this point.
I think this phrasing is the most telling. This is not a partnership. Facebook wholly owns Whatsapp. As soon as Facebook decides that their vision for Whatsapp is more important than the vision laid out in this post, Whatsapp will be powerless to do anything. The fact that Jan Koum now sits on Facebook's board may help to mitigate any change to Whatsapp, but it does not change this fundamental fact.
I think this phrasing is the most telling. This is not a partnership. Facebook wholly owns Whatsapp. As soon as Facebook decides that their vision for Whatsapp is more important than the vision laid out in this post, Whatsapp will be powerless to do anything. The fact that Jan Koum now sits on Facebook's board may help to mitigate any change to Whatsapp, but it does not change this fundamental fact.
[deleted]
uh oh . someone is scared...
This seems kind of pointless. I don't think anybody believed Whatsapp wasn't storing phonebooks/location/etc before the Facebook merger, and I'm pretty sure nobody really believes Facebook won't in the future. Comes across as desperate to stop... something? Did I miss the outcry against this merger somewhere?
Ever since Facebook bought whatsapp, my partner, family and I have switched to TextSecure, and we've been very happy so far.
If you're concerned about Facebook's record on privacy, TextSecure is the way to go. They recently added data messages, so it's no longer tied to SMS only.
(Note: I'm not affiliated with TextSecure in any way.)
If you're concerned about Facebook's record on privacy, TextSecure is the way to go. They recently added data messages, so it's no longer tied to SMS only.
(Note: I'm not affiliated with TextSecure in any way.)
He should publish the terms of the sale if he wants us to believe that this privacy stance will be hard to change.
> None of that data has ever been collected and stored by WhatsApp, and we really have no plans to change that.
I love the "really" there. Even while trying to reassure people, he couldn't resist leaving himself at least a little bit of an out.
I love the "really" there. Even while trying to reassure people, he couldn't resist leaving himself at least a little bit of an out.
I admire the sentiment, but I can't help being reminded of Wayne Rooney's "once a Blue, always a Blue" shirt. I'm sure he also meant it wholeheartedly at the time.
Sadly there are 19bn reasons for this situation to change.
Sadly there are 19bn reasons for this situation to change.
They're starting to feel the effects of the mass exodus to Telegram.
> None of that data has ever been collected and stored by WhatsApp, and we really have no plans to change that.
I believe you.
However Facebook owns your company now, so the future of WhatsApp is not your call anymore.
I believe you.
However Facebook owns your company now, so the future of WhatsApp is not your call anymore.
> Respect for your privacy is coded into our DNA
I believe you, but I don't believe that Facebook shares your principles.
I believe you, but I don't believe that Facebook shares your principles.
Oh please. How utterly patronizing. Even down to the hackneyed "humbled" cliche in the first sentence. Jan Koum and WhatsApp, just take your billions and go buy a yacht. Are you really having fun trying to control the message?
Will people with platforms ever stop using them to spout self-serving bullshit?
Will people with platforms ever stop using them to spout self-serving bullshit?
true, but by having my phone number and my friends address book that lists my phone number, you in-fact have my phone number.
We don’t know your home address
You have my friends address book which has my address for my phone number and you have my phone number. So. No. You do in-fact have my home address.
We don’t know where you work
See above
or collect your GPS location
that's what you say, but you really have my GPS location, at least to some degree as sharing my location is one of the features in WhatsApp I used at times.
None of that data has ever been collected and stored by WhatsApp, and we really have no plans to change that.
While I believe you that you so far haven't collected anything, there's nothing to stop your new owners from collecting the data.
This post is complete nonsense and I'm just ever so happy that I have deleted my account the moment the sale went public. Considering the fact that my GF was able to send messages to my account despite myself having deleted it, I doubt that anything was really deleted though. So thanks.