The difference between that old-timey metadata and this is that old metadata wasn’t tied to anything but other metadata and basic demographic info, and wasn’t so widely distributed and simple to access and wield with the click of a mouse. There was very little in the way of actionable intelligence tied to that old metadata that would be necessary to weaponize it. Now, it’s tied to an endlessly streaming record of people’s existence that constantly increases in effectiveness with every single byte of data they compile.
They may only have the metadata from WhatsApp messages, but if you think that can’t be easily tied to the growing treasure trove of information about you that’s for sale to the highest bidder, you might eventually be in for a rude awakening.
It’s the default messaging system here in Panama too. I’ve never found it obnoxious. Now, I have some friends who use it in an obnoxious way but I don’t need to pay attention to their posts.
Actually, there are efforts along those lines that involve the suddenly ubiquitous “blockchain” technology. It seems to be our only way out of this mess, so pay attention and don’t let your eyes glaze over too much when the millennials start pushing you to start using it.
This is not in dispute. (To be clear, though, I was talking about the difference between proprietary vs. non-proprietary software. Most freeware is proprietary.)
Given public corporations’ track record of producing and disseminating spyware, adware, and similar crap (and in many cases getting away with it) that’s a very poor metric of trustworthiness. A better metric would be whether you (or a sufficiently skilled third party whom you trust and who is independent of the software’s publishers) can freely examine how the software works (that is, by examining the source code) and verify that there are no obvious security or privacy issues.
In that case, the solution would be to get people to start using the better app, not to continue using one that is known to be problematic. Whatever you may think of WhatsApp, it did not spring into existence with a userbase of millions; the company and its early adopters had to convince others to start using it. The same would be true of any non-proprietary alternative.
I loathe it. First of all, I already have to have Skype, Facebook Messenger, SMS, and GroupMe, depending on who I’m trying to reach. Now, I’m supposed to add WhatsApp as well. But, that’s not why I loathe it.
I loathe it because you can’t directly contact someone without giving WhatsApp access to all of your contacts. I literally cannot start a message to someone’s phone number unless I give WhatsApp (and, of course Facebook) all of my contact information. So, if someone wants me to talk to them on WhatsApp, I have to have them get in touch with me first, and then I can respond.
None of my other million messaging apps require this. Facebook Messenger requires that you’re Friends with the person you’re contacting, but not all of your contacts.
Luckily, WhatsApp is almost never used in the US, so this only became an issue when my kid went to Spain recently and the teacher wanted everyone on WhatsApp.
Everyone who’s read the articles I linked above about Cambridge Analytica using Facebook data and what they have been up to in small countries with little to no privacy protections is also shuddering a bit at each country mentioned as fully embracing WhatsApp for most of their their social and even political communications, right?
So your point is what exactly? If Facebook had been a non-propriety open source app, Cambridge Analytica wouldn’t have been able to do their data mining?
That depends on the implementation and policies of the alternative to Facebook, which yeah, pretty much requires something like the blockchain to be able to really trust.
Yes, WhatsApp is greedy with phone numbers. It’s best just to not give Facebook your phone number. (That’s how they do most of the their tracking, anyway.)
So what if they get my list of phone numbers? Phone numbers aren’t secret. If someone really wants to find a phone number - any phone number - they’ll find it.
First of all, my contacts contain phone numbers, addresses, emails, birthdays. Now, they can spam my friends, hassle me about contacting them, and so on. More importantly, there’s just no reason to require that. Why can’t I start a new conversation with a phone number - sure, they’ll know I know that person, but that’s it. And, they’ll only know their phone number, unless that person gives them more. Why do they require me to open up my contacts? Because selling private information is their business model. I don’t want to be a part of it, so I can’t use their service effectively.
WhatsApp is inescapable here in Indonesia. It’s free, which is a huge deal for my Indonesian friends on a budget. It’s also an incredibly easy way to organize when you have a group of people trying to get together. Both my gamelan group (nearly all Indonesian) and my bookclub (nearly all non-Indonesian) use it as an invaluable tool to figure out when, and how many of us, are meeting at various times and places.
When I return to the US, I have no plans to continue using it, but I will if it turns out to be as ubiquitous as it is in Indonesia.
In my experience, it’s almost unheard of in the US. The people I know who use it are either from other countries or spent many years out of the country and use it to contact friends.
It’s possible that I’ve literally never heard of anyone using it domestically here in the US. We’ve had unlimited texting for a while, and probably many more iPhones, where people use iMessage. Plus, Facebook Messenger for everyone on Facebook, which is still pretty popular. Snapchat for the younger crowd, Instagram for the 20’s folks, GroupMe for teams and random groupings (school groups, for example).
I’d love a chat program that could simulate all of those various protocols so I could go back to a single messaging system. If I want to contact one of my kids overseas, I use Facebook Messenger. The other two, SMS. If I want all three, GroupMe, because one of my local kids doesn’t have Facebook.
Anyway, WhatsApp? Shudder. I don’t know why anyone would want that in the US.
What’s wrong with it? Compared to all the other things you listed, I mean. I don’t use any of them (I avoid FB like the plague), but I guess I’ll get over my curmudgeonly “change bad!” attitude if I have to, and use them if that’s what people are doing in the US. But I’m curious as to the practical reasons why they beat WhatsApp, which has been great for me and all my friends.
They have to make money somehow. I’d rather they sell my information than force me to watch advertising, for instance (and no, I get very little spam).
WhatsApp is owned by Facebook, so you’re not avoiding it like the plague. Facebook doesn’t have all of my contacts – I’ve never given it that permission. But, in order to use WhatsApp, I have to give it all my contacts, and, by extension, give them to Facebook, too. That’s what’s wrong with it. None of those other systems require it.
My (50-year-old-person) experience in my fairly nice neighborhood, with young adult and teen kids has been that people communicate mostly by SMS or iMessage (not me, I have an Android), except for younger kids who often use SnapChat as well.
None of the other chat systems require you to watch ads either, right? And, anyway, sure, that’s obviously your prerogative. I have an Android phone, so I’ve sold my soul to Google. I just prefer not to sell it to Facebook as well, and I’m annoyed that they make the program practically unusable if you don’t (unlike the other thousand ways that people contact each other).
At least they make it obvious that they are taking your personal information, I suppose. LinkedIn used to try over and over to get that permission, but they still let you use their software. You just had to be diligent.
I’ve been using WhatsApp dozens of times a day for something like 7 years. Over that period of time, how have I suffered by allowing them access to my list of contacts?