Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0xmohit | Hacker News Reader

Quoting from the link:

  Facebook said on Tuesday, after the order had been issued, that
  it had complied with Europe’s privacy rules and that it was
  willing to work with the German regulator to address its
  concerns.

Two Indian students challenged Facebook on WhatsApp privacy policy changes [0]. The following is what WhatsApp counsel told [1]:

  Using the messaging service is a voluntary decision, we have
  not forced anybody to use it. Users have an option of opting
  out of it.

Disclaimer: I don't have an account on either Facebook or WhatsApp.

[0] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-20/facebook-f...

[1] http://mashable.com/2016/09/23/india-delhi-high-court-whatsa...

View on HN

Interesting when you confront this with those decisions of Brazilian courts of suspending /blocking WhatsApp during some days. Because the response, from the court order, is always "Facebook and WhatsApp are separeted companies, you are asking Facebook (that has a office in Brazil) to answer for WhatsApp (that hasn't), Facebook doesn't have access to any meta-data from WhatsApp (including which user talked to another one)".

If this is true, then Facebook might find itself in quite some bother now or in the future. Can you provide a reference?

For some previous discussions here:

duckduckgo whatsapp facebook brazil !hn

why not just provide the URL directly?

https://hn.algolia.com/?query=whatsapp%20facebook%20brazil

Well, I like duckduckgo for one and was showing them some love. Especially appropriate in this thread.

Here is the reference. It's the text of one of judicial decisions that blocked Whatsapp in Brazil (translated to English): https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u...

The relevant part is: "the other company, based in the country, has no "powers" on the company of your own conglomerate".

Note: in the same paragraph it says "a company does not have established in Germany". It's a Translator bug. The correct is: "one company is not established in the country".

Original text is at: http://tecnologia.uol.com.br/noticias/redacao/2016/07/19/vej...

> Using the messaging service is a voluntary decision

Once a critical mass uses a messaging service, it's not a completely voluntary decision, especially when there is no open standard with interoperable competing apps.

This is false. Market dominance does not transform a proprietary product into a basic utility. What I mean is that simply because a proprietary product has a large mass of users does not mean the users have the right to demand that it be regulated like a public utility.

It can in some cases and in some cases they should be turned into infrastructure. We've done the same with power plants and highways.

And actually yes they do have that right! A corporation is given the privilege to exist by the state, that privilege can also be taken away.

"It can in some cases and in some cases they should be turned into infrastructure. We've done the same with power plants and highways. "

This is precisely because there are no real alternatives. In fact, when and if solar + batteries becomes an actual viable solution to powering you + your neighbors, ...

As for rights, yes, you do have the right, and in fact, personally, while i'm not in favor of trying to turn internet companies into regulated utilities, i am pretty much in favor of killing the LLC and going back to "officers and shareholders are liable" model that used to exist.

I think we need to start looking at the meta-data generated by communication networks (who talks/chats/tweets/etc whom, and when) as a commons, that needs to be regulated. Beyond the European privacy laws designed to protect privacy, I think there should probably be limits on who is allowed to do what, and how one is allowed to store and profit from the knowledge. It should be a regulated privilege to be able to handle this information, in a similar way that it's a privilege to run passenger trains, or even postal and phone services.

And why not, given that the network effect means that messaging apps are effectively natural monopolies, and even Milton Friedman of the Chicago school allowed for government regulation and intervention in the two cases of 1) externalities and 2) natural monopolies?

"Using the phone network is a voluntary decision, nobody is forced to own a phone."

There aren't alternatives to a telephone system: there is essentially 'one' telephone. What's App is hardly a monopoly. Users could use SMS, Skype or any number of alternatives that provide almost identical utility. It isn't like comparing a telephone with hand written notes.

Interestingly, what led to What's App? Telephone company monopolies on SMS. The internet itself could be considered a public utility -- not what flows over its wires.

One solution to this, assuming we want to take the public utility route, is to start charging users like it were a utility. Perhaps €10 per month for German users to offset the lost revenue from the data FB won't be allowed to collect. Then the Germans can tax that €10 just like it taxes phones and everyone will be happy. What's App isn't 'free.' Using that service has a cost. Should Facebook just give away their product? Why would a business do that? Facebook employees don't work for free, so why should Germans get to free ride? A really popular service ought not be regulated by the virtue that it's really popular.

There is a mostly free market. What's App isn't essential or even necessary. It's about as 'vital' as Instagram. It isn't like it's the only game in town.. not even close.

I detect snark, but it's a true statement.

Natural monopolies are very often regulated because of the negative side effects of not doing so.

Which is to say, market dominance has transformed products into utilities in the past.

You can argue that should not be the case, but, historically, it very much has been.

There's surely a balance to be struck between incentivising firms to innovate by allowing them to earn profits when they develop a good product and allowing a firms to lock-in economic rents forever.

How you strike that balance is a value judgement about the kind of society you want to live in.

Can you give examples of the natural monopolies you are referring to?

Most classic utilities were at one point or another provided privately - water, telephones, electricity are examples. In each of these examples the delivery infrastructure makes them a natural monopoly.

Almost any activity you can think of has been carried out by both the public and private sector in different societies (or the same one).

In all industries, very dominant firms are likely to see action from the state.

Downvoted for asking for clarification? So I could participate in the discussion better? Awesome.

Well, archealogical anthropologists would say that even fire/firemaikng was that at one point in time.

Your electric company. Running two or more sets of power wires to every house so you can have competition on provision of electricity at the last-mile level doesn't really make sense.

I disagree. Some of my clients and contractors use specific messaging platform (mostly skype, facebook and wechat) and I do not have the power to make them change.

It is not fair to ask people concerned about privacy to pay a toll in terms of professional outreach.

"and I do not have the power to make them change."

This is pretty irrelevant. they have the power to change.

There are plenty of alternatives, in fact, you listed them!

Users have the right to demand anything they want within the free speech laws of their country.

They also have the power to impose regulation on any kind of activity not already protected by precedent or constitution, if they can use the democratic process of the courts and lawmakers to impose it.

I imagine the electric companies made similar arguments at the start of the 20th century.

> Market dominance does not transform a proprietary product into a basic utility

Agreed. Isn't it more that it becomes so ubiquitous and expected that it starts to be considered a basic utility by the public? In the case of social and IM it's the network effect that matters - where are family and friends.

Once a certain tipping point was reached you'd be hard pushed to find many willing to live without mains water or electric. These days you'd be hard pushed to find many willing to live without internet, social networking, and IM chat. They're becoming utilities, and quotes like from their counsel "well just don't use it, it's optional" ring, for the majority of the public, increasingly hollow.

Just as our definition of essentials, poverty, minimum income and inflation (in the UK at least) have all been adjusted to reflect the internet age and provide for internet connections, mobile phones etc, our defnition of utilities should too.

I'm doubtful. With that definition, lattes should be made a utility. So should shoes. Tires.

A utility is indicated by, requiring so heavy an investment in infrastructure that would be onerous to the public to support duplicates.

Fair point, I was only thinking of things at that scale when writing, so requiring big investment and infrastructure - phone networks, social networks, water, etc.

The difference is of course the network effect: If I'm not happy with the shoes I'm wearing, there is a huge range of shoes I can buy without any negative consequences for me.

Switching messengers or social networks can have the obvious consequences that you lose your network. That way, even if there are plenty of competitors in theory, the lock-in can be the same as with a monopoly.

Not really... If all of my friends buy a Starbucks latte, I'm not forced to also buy a Starbucks latte just to interact with them. I could hang out with them at Starbucks drinking a Caribou latte, or not drink any coffee at all. If all my friends buy Jordans, I don't have to buy a pair of Jordans to join their game of pickup basketball. Heck I don't even need shoes (not recommended but to each his own).

If all of my friends choose to use WhatsApp messenger, my options are to not communicate with them at all (a non-starter), or to also use WhatsApp.

Or to call them on the phone, talk to them in person, send them an E-mail or letter.. You know, the things we all did in ancient times like 5 years ago?

Yes, it's completely reasonable to replace real-time group chat with... a conference call among 6 friends?

Hey guys, I know ALL of you chat with WhatsApp, but can we move to email just for me and my concerns around security that you don't care about at all?

Seriously... you can make completely unreasonable suggestions until you're blue in the face but it's not going to change reality. There are very real social pressures at play in this discussion. Yes, it turns out peer pressure is a real thing and has a very prominent role in this discussion.

Do you really think Facebook would've spent $19* BILLION on WhatsApp if they thought people would be willing to drop it at the first sign of inconvenience? They know they've got lock-in through sheer market adoption of the platform. If they didn't, they would've just stuck with the facebook messenger path they were already heading down.

Wasnt it $19 billion?

You are absolutely right, I guess I better correct that, thanks!

I don't know what app-of-the-week my friends use to chat with each other, but they return my E-mails and answer my phone calls. If one's friends won't communicate with them unless they're using a particular brand of messaging app, are they really friends?

Yes, they're really friends. If my friends all use whatsapp to organize parties, and I refuse to use it and force them to email me as a special one-off, am I really a friend? Because I know they'd love to have a back-and-forth conversation about timing/place/duties related to the party, then have to constantly send one-off emails to get my feedback.

Let me guess - in your world they're all assholes for not constantly inconveniencing themselves to cater specifically to what you want. Or you just literally have no social life, because picking up a phone isn't really a viable option to plan a party with a large group of friends. And while email will work, when nobody else wants to use it and you try to force the issue, you're an asshole.

>Let me guess - in your world they're all assholes for not constantly inconveniencing themselves to cater specifically to what you want. Or you just literally have no social life,

It is probably this. It is not a hard concept to understand. I do not force my friends to use other services, and doing so would just be causing them an inconvenience and annoy them. Yes they are friends, but having to be a special butterfly doesn't mean they have to like that.

I'm not sure I understand what's motivating the hostility. I don't force my friends to not use whatever social media apps they enjoy, and they don't force me to use them. I'm not sure how either of these attitudes make anyone an "asshole".

Facebook Safety Check is considered as such utility by fb themselves, would I be able to use it without fb account?

>>> Using the messaging service is a voluntary decision >> >> Once a critical mass uses a messaging service, it's not a >> completely voluntary decision, especially when there is >> no open standard with inter-operable competing apps. > > This is false. Market dominance does not transform a > proprietary product into a basic utility. What I mean is > that simply because a proprietary product has a large > mass of users does not mean the users have the right to > demand that it be regulated like a public utility.

(Emphasis added). Messaging services are special because of network effects. The postal service, the telegraph, the phone system, the Internet are all special services.

I would argue that email should probably have some special regulation beyond SPAM - the way big players like Google and Microsoft handle email is actually a problem already - perfectly good email, from a perfectly valid domain, from an ip without any terrible history - can sometimes end up as SPAM. This in turn makes it harder for people to compete by hosting their own email, in essence market dominance prevents competition -- and harms the commons.

(Yes, the initial harm has been caused and is being caused by spammers -- but the dwindling possibility of running decentralized services on the Internet could very well end up being much more damaging than the cost of SPAM ever was).

And IM and video chat and so on could probably also need some more regulation at some point - because it seems obvious the big players are actively working towards artificial monopolies in order to control the flow of data, so that they can sit on the biggest pile of meta-data (and sometimes data/content) in order to make money (in the short term from simple meta-data/network analysis and advertising, in the long run from having the richest data set on which to do more advanced, automated machine learning).

In this crazy world in which water and other natural resources, previously controlled by and for the public, I can see how people would argue that it somehow makes sense for a private entity to curate and profit from the information that hides in the rich metadata of all human electronic communication -- I think it would be a very good idea to regulate this along the lines of other commons. An example might be parks and spaces accessible to the public - where there are certain things that owners cannot do - or have to do.

What did we all do in the past without those CRITICAL messaging services? Did people simply not communicate before IM apps were invented?

Things just took a few hours longer, making planning a party a thing of days or weeks.

With whatsapp, I can plan a birthday party in 20 minutes, on the same day as the birthday, while also ensuring everyone who couldn’t answer a call got the message.

Using a cellphone is voluntarily, too.

Post office as well.

Can phone operators sell the social graph of users to 3rd parties, then?

It's so dumb...

> Using a cellphone is voluntarily, too.

Indeed. But the difference is that it is legal (and possible) to program a very open (and privacy-conscious) messaging service.

On the other hand, it is completely illegal (in the US by FCC ruling) to develop a completely free and open baseband processor and use it. It is also nearly impossible to set up an alternative cellphone network since you need licenses for using the parts of the spectrum.

This is where the difference is.

You can develop a phone using open band (CB radio for example).

At least in Germany, where I live, there are similar regulations concerning permission to build your own radio device for CB band as for baseband processors (i.e. if you want to legally use your self-built device there are strong restrictions (CE certifications are nearly unaffordable for makers).

Also in CB bands you are not allowed to encrypt the sent data. Thus not an option for people caring about privacy.

In the US, for pretty much all open frequencies that require either no license, a de facto license (owning a device gives you a license, CB), or a certification test based license do not allow any sort of scrambling or encryption unless the gov't is able to decode what you are sending. A third party successfully listening in defeats the entire purpose of obscuring what you are saying.

But, if you can afford an expensive license from the FCC for operating on other (commercial) bands, you can secure your communications from prying eyes.

Post office really isn't voluntary. When I get my required tax forms from France, if I don't have the post office, I'm unable to complete an action required by the State. That means the Post Office isn't voluntary unless you want to break the law.

When my kid's school requires What's App in order to submit required documents, then there might be a claim that What's App rises to the importance of the Post Office or the telephone.

ING, a bank, is starting to require WhatsApp instead of email for customer service, in the Netherlands I think.

You're not that far off ;-)

Such a requirement would terminate my relationship with them immediately...

What if every bank started requiring it?

Right. However there's many competing post services providers in my country, and the ones used by the government and institutions change from time to time (there's open competition every few years and for a while courts were using different provider than the usual national post for example). And no matter which one was "mandatory" at any given time - all of them have to keep the secret of correspondence and have to comply with the law regarding storing private informations etc.

What about the dark profiles? You're in all your friends/family's address book. You'll get profiled even without FB or Whatsapp.

It's similar to not using gmail, but sending/receiving from gmail.

> Using the messaging service is a voluntary decision

Yes, it is voluntary, but it would be socially alienating not to be on that service. Here's a relevant talk [0] by Moxie Marlinspike talking about that.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk&feature=youtu.be...

> Yes, it is voluntary, but it would be socially alienating not to be on that service.

On the other hand: Do people who care about privacy very much really get along well with people who don't and force you in subtile ways to use such a messaging service? I rather think it's the completely different mindset of these two classes of people that is socially alienating and the message service is just a symptom (I believe I know what I'm talking about since I think I am one of these very privacy-caring people).

I for one do.

Some of the people who care most about privacy are also very social: activists and politicians.

For activists I think you are biased by the fact that by definition you only perceive activists that are rather social. I, for example, consider myself as very acivist, but also very unsocial.

For politicians my perception is different: one might be tempted to call them privacy activists, but only for their own privacy (for obvious reasons), but not for passing laws protecting the privacy of the ordinary citizen.

> I, for example, consider myself as very acivist, but also very unsocial.

Can you square that circle for me and explain what you're doing to be an activist while eschewing the social sphere?

> Can you square that circle for me and explain what you're doing to be an activist while eschewing the social sphere?

I don't eschew the social sphere, but I strongly lack charisma/am socially rather clumsy and rather the kind of person who has difficulties forming friendships, thus I'm not very social.

OK--so how are you, as you define it, an "activist"? Activism, to my mind, requires social interaction and engagement. I'm curious as to what I'm missing.

Let me help here:

There is a whole lot you can do without one-to-one social face-to-face interaction and engagement.

There's plenty of "activists" trying to develop encrypted messaging systems, blogging about privacy rights etc, and they are not all that social.

We're different people, but I think my friends are just not aware of how their rights are violated and how important privacy is in a digital world. Mainstream media also rarely publishes content related to this issue, so most people have no clue about what happens in this field. Pretty hard to make good judgements if you don't know the details.

Now, going without Facebook or IM is "socially alienating"? People's social lives must be pretty fragile these days if they really require things that did not even exist for the majority of humanity's existence.

Clothes "did not even exist for the majority of humanity's existence" and it is socially alienating to not use them. Not a great argument.

How are the privacy laws in India? Couldn't the students sue?

to be honest, if the pressure was just from two individuals, I'd also say something like Facebook.

Interesting question: do we think the Facebook people actually believe the "usage is voluntary, so we can do whatever we want" line of reasoning? It's clearly a very persuasive PR argument, but there are some smart people at FB, especially working on WhatsApp.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com