WhatsApp To Switch Off Messages For All Who Reject New Terms (bbc.com) 56
WhatsApp users who do not accept its updated terms and conditions by the 15 May deadline will be unable to receive or send messages until they do so. From a report: Their account will be listed as "inactive". And inactive accounts can be deleted after 120 days. Calls and notifications will still function for "a short while" but, TechCrunch reported, probably only a "few weeks". WhatsApp announced the update in January. And there was a backlash among many users who thought it meant the company was planning to change the amount of data it shared with its parent company, Facebook. It later clarified this was not the case. And the update was aimed at enabling payments to be made to businesses.
Seems Aright to Me (Score:4, Insightful)
If they aren't modifying anything that invalidates in-place contracts, this seems to me a perfectly valid thing to do. It's announced in advance, and they even pushed back the implementation date 3 months to give people time to opt in or out.
It's then up to their user base to decide whether or not to participate into the future.
Re: (Score:2)
But Facebook is still involved so I try to keep away from that sector.
I try to limit my exposures. It's futile, but Facebook is one service I can do without.
Re: (Score:1)
Everyone can do without them, they are nothing by empty, worthless, LAZY, communications. TOO lazy to make a phone call, hell let alone a video phone call, too lazy to send an email, to lazy to even send a text. Just the lazy pretend communications of empty social media, defending your identity and chasing empty popularity, even when everyone is fully aware of the fake accounts, the flood of PR=B$ trolls with multiple accounts, corporate censrship.
People are even still too stupid to realise what is going o
Re: (Score:3)
Right. I get EULAs modified all the time (Apple is one case) and the software stops working if you don't accept.
I am not really comfortable with this because a) I am at a disadvantage because I don't really have the option to not use the software for one reason or another, and b) like most people I don't read all the EULAs anyway.
I read somewhere that if you read all the EULAs that a typically user agrees to, it would take months. I think that is overstated. Much of the EULAs are boilerplate that y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A good bit of irony would be to put a clause in the EULA that says, "If I am William Gates, I agree to cede all of my stock in Microsoft to XY Corporation." Bill Gates of course invented the EULA.
You’d still have to convince a judge to enforce the EULA, which means you would have to fight Bill Gates in court. EULAs only help if you can afford to go to court over what they say.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect EULAs predate Bill Gates usage.
Re: Seems Aright to Me (Score:3)
Actually, my memory seems to suggest they don't. At least for software.
I seem to remember, that before Microsoft, asking money for software in that way was unheard of. You either got it with the hardware, like MacOS to this day, or you paid somebody to develop something for you.
What I remember reading, many years ago, suggested MS came up with using the Content Mafia's "licensing" protection money "business" model for software.
Re: (Score:1)
> Actually, my memory seems to suggest they don't. At least for software.
Well then, is it not a good thing that the reality around us is not dependent on the reliability of your memory.
> I seem to remember, that before Microsoft, asking money for software in that way was unheard of. You either got it with the hardware, like MacOS to this day, or you paid somebody to develop something for you.
That is false. Charging money for software was not unheard of before Microsoft. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books. [mit.edu]
Re: (Score:3)
At least for software. I seem to remember, that before Microsoft, asking money for software in that way was unheard of.
I think you just re-wrote about 40% of the history of IBM.
I remember in the 70s having to select software from the price list from Data General. They had only one OS at the time but the various sub-packages cost extra.
I remember looking at a EULA for the first time in the 70s. The agreement was written by DEC (Digital Equipment Corp) in the 60s and it was I think for RSTS/E, which cost about $8K separate from the hardware. It was an amazing document. It basically said: "There's some hardware ove
Re: (Score:2)
There were various agreements to be signed prior to Gates, and some software might have re-iterated bits of copyright law (kinda like the "FBI Warning" screens), but the "by opening this" or "By clicking this" contract of adhesion presented after sale, I think that was Bill Gates.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as it is EULAs it doesn't matter as they have no legal weight or validity. Terms of Service however are legal, as they are free to stop serving you.
Re:Seems Aright to Me (Score:5, Interesting)
EU and UK GDPR means that any such data sharing is "opt-in". That is, I have to CHOOSE to give you that data, and if I don't you can't suddenly change my terms of service that I'd agreed to in order to include it.
And the data is PERSONAL data, so if you didn't need that before, why do you need it now? The answer: To sell to businesses. Which I don't want you doing. And which I have a legal right to REFUSE you.
They are trying to make it "opt-out" which is, in and of itself, illegal under data protection laws in the UK and EU.
And when you try to "opt out" (which you shouldn't need to), they are asking for MORE INFORMATION than you originally gave them. They want to know my name, address, my OS software versions, etc. etc. and refuse to allow me to opt-out without it. This is also illegal. "Just tell us what information you DON'T want us to have, and we'll not record that information..." is downright stupid.
Further, the opt-out is by insecure email only, and has to be in their prescribed format and they do not accept any other form of opt-out. This is basic data protection - you want me to send personal information that you DO NOT HAVE over an INSECURE medium to "verify" (against what?!) that I'm the registered user so that I then have the authority to "opt-out" of something that I should not have to.
And the stated purpose of this extra information? To give to Facebook so that you can "purchase from businesses more easily". Nope.
As a long-term Whatsapp customer, I have filed complaints with them, the UK ICO, the equivalent in Ireland (where they are hosted but refuse to give head-office address details so you can't write to them which is, again, illegal), etc.
The next stage is removal of all my data from the service and a lawsuit for failing to comply with basic data protection and GDPR options.
If even your terms and opt-outs are illegal in several ways, and you don't seem to care, why the hell should I trust you with any of my data?
Re: Seems Aright to Me (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree that trying to force people to move like that is a way to lose friends.
The way I did it was by gradually spreading the word a few years ago, until probably half of my friends were on Signal after a few weeks (I have a fairly technically orientated set of friends so that wasn't too hard)
For the rest, it was about waiting for a good time. The recent media coverage about WhatsApp T&Cs (regardless of how accurate that coverage was) ended up being a good way to have a conversation with people about moving and most others either moved or already had Signal by then.
For the last handful, the conversation has been "Have you tried Signal yet? [ ... usual blurb...] Anyway, I'm on the verge of deleting WhatsApp now, so you can get me in future either with Signal or SMS.
I'm now down to 2 contact that I use WhatApp for and I expect to have deleted my account in a few weeks.
At no point was any pressure or anything like that needed, and well timed gentle nudging works and I believe is more effective than lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
Literally to piss them off at the moment.
I'm already on other services.
But I object to this kind of use of my data and if I can make them go down a compliant path, I will.
I find the service given by a company is far more dictated by how well they handle complaints than anything else, and Whatsapp has singularly failed.
So it's now a point of principle, they've already lost my custom.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why this whole doesn't apply in the EU, but only to non-EU users of WhatsApp.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the UK can change their laws from EU standard, but until they do all the same laws apply. The EU can't legislate in the member countries, EU rules are instituted in each country separately.
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear - Whatsapp is run from Ireland for EU and UK customers. And therefore subject to the EU GDPR.
They are servicing customers in the UK. And therefore subject to the UK GDPR (which is identical at the moment).
Whichever way you spin it... they are breaking one of the laws that they are subject to.
UK personal data can only be handled in the EU (as they are doing) if the company abides by both UK and EU law. It was one of the "easy" decisions of Brexit.
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect.
You need to read a proper data protection law.
Re: Seems Aright to Me (Score:1)
I agree. It is their own body. They are the only ones who get to decide if they wanna commit suicide. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
It's then up to their user base to decide whether or not to participate into the future.
I just want to take a moment to say that I’m a big fan, Captain Obvious, glad to see you participating in the forums.
Re: (Score:2)
Who are you, and why are you pretending to be Captain Sarcasm? He's much more nuanced than that.
And how many will click 'I Agree'. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Most people. It doesn't matter if you read the EULA or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Before reading anything above that button.
I'm one of them, because I generally assume with such applications (like most of the internet), everything I put or say on that app will either be sold by the app or stolen by hackers.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people will exercise their right not to care. We still have some freedom don't we?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, nobody ever seems to ask the other question - how many people are actually materially impacted one way or the other by the EULA? Most people don't give a shit because it doesn't impact them and they're too busy with real life to constantly worry about "Oh dear, what will become of my Privacy on the Internet, I should be Very Concerned" type shit.
I'm fully aware of all the shit that goes on with "muh data" but if some Internet dweeb starts ranting and raving at me about it I get a glassy eyed look, tur
"...its parent company, Facebook. ..." (Score:2)
Another reason to not use Whatsapp (Score:2)
Signal (Score:2)
I am in the EU, so not affected, still I am using Signal for communication with all contacts who already moved, and warning all others who I am still communicating with to do so.
The wave will hit the EU at some point in the future, better be prepared.
Re: Signal (Score:2)
Uum, you are actually affected. They're just keeping extra-quiet. Just like those shadow profiles for people who don't have FB but surf on sites with FB like buttons.
Re: (Score:3)
Uum, you are actually affected. They're just keeping extra-quiet. Just like those shadow profiles for people who don't have FB but surf on sites with FB like buttons.
With no consent, shadow profiles could get them in real trouble... One thing is requiring consent in order to use an app, but collecting data in the shadows with no consent and creating a data registry could get them in dire straits.
It's a deadline alright. :) (Score:2, Interesting)
Byebye WhatsApp. Hello Signal.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool. So tell me your secret, how did you get your friends, family, colleagues, and people who you haven't even met yet to switch? I want to learn from you since you did the unthinkable and solved the network effect. I'm in awe!
Re: (Score:2)
Can't speak for the GP, but for me, I was lucky enough to NOT have a lot of family already hard core dedicated to FB messenger.... then I showed them that signal could do live video chat across platforms (I use iOS, most of my fam uses Android) and sharing pre-recorded videos looked clean and crisp (as opposed to looking like they were filmed with a potato when using traditional MMS). I never even mention the security/encryption stuff because it's mostly over their head, and it's not a selling point to the
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that's easy enough. WhatsApp is more difficult since there are literally countries which run on it. E.g. in Brazil / The Netherlands / India it is literally the communication platform. The. Not number one, or number two. Just the communications platform, be that between friends, families, responding to classifieds with strangers, confirming your next job interviews, how airlines or trains send you their tickets and delay notifications, hell in the NL it's how you settle the bill when you go out to dinn
Re: (Score:2)
I've never used Whatsapp but signed up with Telegram about 2 years ago. Today, nearly all the significant people in my Contacts are on there too. Many people who were surprised when I didn't have Whatsapp are now on that list.
So in my case at least, the secret is that there's no secret.
Re: (Score:2)
Going from nothing to a new platform is not a problem with network effect. Compare that to countries who's economies are literally run on whatsapp. I responded with examples to another guy but the most overt of which was when jumped on the website to contact a company I had two options. One was a mailto:info@ [mailto] address, and the other was an api.whatsapp.com/send address.
This is probably foreign to America but there are whole countries for whom Whatsapp is fundamental communications infrastructure. It's no lon
Signal (Score:2)
I guess that means the folks at signal.org are going to have to increase server capacity again.
My experience from their last " scare " (Score:1)
People will simply click on accept and continue using it.
On the last scare, only 3 people from my contacts added Signal and even less added Telegram.
Mind you, they never left WhatsApp.
So there is no hope of a change.
Why is this stated as if it's new? (Score:2)
Good (Score:2)
Other clauses in the TOC? (Score:1)
What a Concept! (Score:2)
Software that blocks usage for not agreeing to the terms of service, what a crazy new concept!
Already deleted WhatsApp. Have you? (Score:2)