WhatsApp won't delete accounts that refuse to sign Facebook data-sharing policy, but they...

midian182

Posts: 6,763   +61
Staff member
A hot potato: WhatsApp has reversed its decision to delete the accounts of users who refuse to sign its new privacy policy. However, those who are adamant that they won't share their data with Facebook will be bombarded with reminders and eventually have their accounts severely restricted.

WhatsApp announced a controversial new privacy policy for non-EU users in January that allows their account data to be shared with the messaging app's owner, Facebook. The service has shared some information, such as phone numbers, with its parent since 2016, but there were fears that the new policy would allow Facebook to access private WhatsApp conversations.

While private conversations remain encrypted, messages sent to and from businesses may be shared, and Facebook can use the data for targeted advertising.

"We may use the information we receive from them, and they may use the information we share with them, to help operate, provide, improve, understand, customize, support, and market our Services and their offerings, including the Facebook Company Products," states the policy.

The public outcry saw WhatsApp delay the signing deadline from February 8 to May 15. It warned that those who refuse to sign would eventually have their accounts deleted.

WhatsApp has now eased that penalty. "No one will have their accounts deleted or lose functionality," it writes, though accounts will see their features restricted.

Anyone who doesn't sign the policy will keep receiving reminders to do so. Eventually, these will become persistent, at which point users will start losing functions.

"You won't be able to access your chat list, but you can still answer incoming phone and video calls. If you have notifications enabled, you can tap on them to read or respond to a message or call back a missed phone or video call," explains WhatsApp.

"After a few weeks of limited functionality, you won't be able to receive incoming calls or notifications and WhatsApp will stop sending messages and calls to your phone."

It's possible to export your WhatsApp chat history to other messaging services that support the feature, such as Telegram. The company reminded users that inactive accounts are automatically deleted after 120 days.

Permalink to story.

 

terzaerian

Posts: 888   +1,269
The sad reality is, people will simply agree and continue using Whatsapp, instead of moving somewhere else.

I was able to get only one person to move to Signal, that tells you.
I was able to get my family on it, and even got an Apple user to at least have it sidecar to iMessage.

Persist, my friend.
 

fl21289

Posts: 237   +285
I was able to get my family on it, and even got an Apple user to at least have it sidecar to iMessage.

Persist, my friend.

Same I got my whole family and most friends on Signal. Even the crew from our IT Department went from Whatsapp to Signal and we are actually enjoying it a bit more. Especially, since all the media we send doesn't download to your local storage (yes I know whatapp you can disable it, but to see the video you will have to download it...)
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,490   +1,087
Remember when Facebook was just embarrassing pics of your nights out? Usually uploaded the following day on a pc from files transferred on your digital camera?

Since then it has evolved as the de facto digital public forum. Except it’s not publicly owned it’s privately owned by one person who seems to have an agenda. We may have public spaces in the real physical world. But in the digital world there is no such thing.
 

dustin_ds3000

Posts: 892   +24
Remember when Facebook was just embarrassing pics of your nights out? Usually uploaded the following day on a pc from files transferred on your digital camera?

Since then it has evolved as the de facto digital public forum. Except it’s not publicly owned it’s privately owned by one person who seems to have an agenda. We may have public spaces in the real physical world. But in the digital world there is no such thing.

Except it is publicly owned, you can go buy Facebook stock right now lol.
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,490   +1,087
Except it is publicly owned, you can go buy Facebook stock right now lol.
Being able to buy shares in a company doesn’t make it a civil service or even a public service. Zuckerberg retains a controlling interest. Most of the time companies float on the exchange it’s to make money and offset personal risk. Not to hand control over to the shareholders. All becoming a PLC has done is give Zucks lots of cash.

Facebook is not a publicly owned company.
 

terzaerian

Posts: 888   +1,269
Facebook is not a publicly owned company.
Government agencies and police departments are using Facebook and Twitter as integral means of communication, especially the latter, where real-time updates on unfolding critical incidents are relayed. Sounds like something approaching a critical public utility to me.

Especially considering that Trump blocking accounts on Twitter from his account was also argued as being a First Amendment issue:

 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,490   +1,087
Government agencies and police departments are using Facebook and Twitter as integral means of communication, especially the latter, where real-time updates on unfolding critical incidents are relayed. Sounds like something approaching a critical public utility to me.

Especially considering that Trump blocking accounts on Twitter from his account was also argued as being a First Amendment issue:

You clearly don’t understand what a public service is. The military for example is publicly owned and controlled service, although they do also use private contractors.

Facebook is a private entity controlled by one person. Just because you can buy shares and government agencies use it doesn’t mean it’s a public controlled forum.

If the US government controlled Facebook then it would be a public service. But because Facebook is controlled by literally one man who does not work for the government that means it’s NOT a publicly controlled service.

Grasp this really simple concept yet mate?
 

terzaerian

Posts: 888   +1,269
You clearly don’t understand what a public service is. The military for example is publicly owned and controlled service, although they do also use private contractors.

Facebook is a private entity controlled by one person. Just because you can buy shares and government agencies use it doesn’t mean it’s a public controlled forum.

If the US government controlled Facebook then it would be a public service. But because Facebook is controlled by literally one man who does not work for the government that means it’s NOT a publicly controlled service.

Grasp this really simple concept yet mate?
The DOD contracts with a private agency to do background checks, "mate." Does this mean those background checks from the contractor shouldn't be treated as being for a government agency? The contractor is, after all, not a federal employee.

When the government uses a private service to execute its functions, the private service becomes a first party to the government wrt that function.
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,490   +1,087
The DOD contracts with a private agency to do background checks, "mate." Does this mean those background checks from the contractor shouldn't be treated as being for a government agency? The contractor is, after all, not a federal employee.

When the government uses a private service to execute its functions, the private service becomes a first party to the government wrt that function.

Look pal Facebook is not a public entity. If it was then so is Apple, MS, Google etc. And if you think those are public bodies then you ought to finish school before commenting on here…
 

terzaerian

Posts: 888   +1,269
Look pal Facebook is not a public entity. If it was then so is Apple, MS, Google etc. And if you think those are public bodies then you ought to finish school before commenting on here…
They should have thought of that before letting public government agencies use their private services for public messaging. You're just dissembling.
 

hwertz

Posts: 33   +17
So, I'd prefer if they DID delete the accounts. I think the risk is too high that Facebook will "accidentally" slurp up the private information of those WhatsApp users who did not agree to the new terms.
 
"No one will (...) lose functionality," it writes, though accounts will see their features restricted.

Can someone please explain to me the difference between "losing functionality" and "having your features restricted to the point of the app becoming useless"? I'm struggling here.