
Snapchat Settles Charges with FTC That It Deceived Users - ewang1
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/technology/snapchat-reaches-settlement-with-federal-trade-commission.html
======
001sky
_The complaint also said Snapchat transmitted users’ location information and
collected sensitive data like address book contacts, despite its saying that
it did not collect such information. The commission said the policies allowed
security researchers to compile a database of 4.6 million user names and phone
numbers during a recent security breach._

~~~
mscarborough
Just another day of moving fast and being disruptive. Oh, and being dishonest
to your customers.

------
tehwebguy
So weird that this is allowed. Company does it: maybe pay a fine. Individual
does it: maybe get charged with a CFAA crime.

~~~
crazypyro
You just gotta be big enough to scare the government in court.

~~~
at-fates-hands
I have no idea why you're getting downvoted.

It's pretty obvious the government doesn't like to tangle with big companies
unless its necessary. Large corporate legal teams can drag out a fight for
several years, earning the ire of state senators voting constituents, and
having a negative effect on their re-election possibilities.

~~~
anigbrowl
Snapchat is not a big company.

------
AJ007
Great to hear that te government will be punishing companies that lied about
their involvement in NSA spying.

"Any company that makes misrepresentations to consumers about its privacy and
security practices risks F.T.C. action.”

------
MichaelGG
It's funny that the FTC was upset that Snapchat couldn't prevent users from
taking a screenshot. It's obvious Snapchat cannot prevent that - the user
could always point a camera at screen, too.

~~~
aero142
It's obvious to a software person. The question is whether they made that
obvious to their non-technical user. It seems to me that their marketing loves
to imply that the message disappears and there is nothing that can be done to
save it.

What is curious to me, is this seems like small fish compared to years of
"unlimited" and "free" being abused in marketing.

~~~
MichaelGG
Obvious to a software person? Or anyone that has ever used a camera?

------
johnvschmitt
In their defense, when the SnapChat founders were on Colbert awhile back, they
were emphatic about saying, "There are many ways it can be saved!" And, were
warning users that it's just a convenient thing, not any true protection.

But, yes, users can be easily confused, and they (intentionally?) got more
downloads / users because people mistakenly believed that the images were 100%
deleted.

For the HN/Techie audience, we of course never believe anything digitally
transmitted to a recipient can be 100% deleted by the sender. Nothing will
ever prevent brute force things like "having a camera over my shoulder,
recording my screens".

------
Tyrant505
So write the terms we have grown to expect, but then give a promise of "do no
evil?"

------
subdane
I appreciate that the FTC is trying to do right by consumers - it's a great
mandate. This Snapchat issue seems so inconsequential compared to two areas
I'd love to see them addressing - net neutrality and data privacy across all
services.

~~~
dragonwriter
Broadband market regulations like net neutrality are, to the extent any
federal agency has jurisdiction, within the jurisdiction of the FCC not the
FTC. I'm not clear that FCC has authority to do much more than it is on data
privacy.

Also note that there is as difference between regulatory actions and
enforcement actions. The later are inherently smaller in scope but necessary
for the former to be meaningful.

~~~
subdane
I'm neither a lawyer nor a politician. But the FTC's mandate is to protect
American consumers, "To prevent business practices that are anticompetitive or
deceptive or unfair to consumers". And those are the consumer issues related
to tech that matter right now.

------
espinchi
The fact that they compiled all that private info must have helped to their
crazy valuation.

~~~
ewang1
Either that or the investors are now spooked.

