
Facebook Ordered to Stop Collecting Data on WhatsApp Users in Germany - mh-cx
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/technology/whatsapp-facebook-germany.html
======
achou
A former colleague of mine who was a distinguished academic and successful
tech executive grew up in East Germany. After the Berlin wall fell, he was
able to enter the building where they kept the dossiers. He found his own file
and was astounded by the information they had on him. His friends, his work,
his habits. Photos of himself going about his business. His social circles.
His friends were equally shocked by the collection of the most trivial
details. They weren't fomenting revolution or doing anything remotely
disruptive. They thought nobody would pay much attention to a bunch of
harmless random students. They were wrong.

Memories like this still have force in Europe. I have to believe that their
history makes many Europeans queasy about the collection of mass information.
It is also easy to see how these laws could be exploited by large companies in
Europe for their own commercial interest. Still, these laws have a moral force
and US companies are stupid to try to circumvent, belittle, or ignore them.
The desire for privacy has deep roots; it is not a nuisance to be swatted away
on the path towards maximal profits.

~~~
Gruselbauer
Absolutely true for older generations, but among those under, say, forty years
of age, the 'I don't have anything to hide' fallacy is alive and well just as
anywhere else.

I'm German and it's been a huge ordeal to get my closest friends to migrate to
Telegram at least. Signal was debated, but the lack of a good desktop client
killed it. XMPP and IRC and all, not with these guys.

Germany has some vocal proponents of privacy ideals, like the _Chaos Computer
Club_ , but we also have politicians who pull the very same crap as anywhere
else.

~~~
newscracker
> it's been a huge ordeal to get my closest friends to migrate to Telegram at
> least. Signal was debated, but the lack of a good desktop client killed it.

I realize it's difficult to get people to change messaging platforms, but if
you have such a chance again _after sometime_ , I would suggest trying out
Wire [1] sometime. I have been recommending it over the last few months for
people to try because it has superior UX (though not on par with Telegram). It
has desktop clients, all chats are end-to-end encrypted (there are no
unencrypted chats at all) and messages are synced across devices. I'm guessing
the end-to-end encryption makes it a bit slow to startup to sync messages.
Notifications also seem a bit unreliable or not working as expected (that's
why the _after sometime_ before).

Wire also has cool features like doodling and allows voice and video calls
too. All this said, Telegram is still the fastest in delivering messages, and
keeps adding new features quicker than any other messaging platform I've seen
in the last few years (WhatsApp is not a platform I monitor because I left it
when it was acquired by Facebook).

[1]: [https://wire.com](https://wire.com)

~~~
tdkl
> Notifications also seem a bit unreliable or not working as expected (that's
> why the after sometime before).

If you mean mobile notifications on Androids, it's worth noting that you need
to whitelist the app in any battery saver modes be it vendor one or Googles
Doze. Since Wire doesn't use GCM (websocket instead) for push, Doze might
cause the unrealiable notifications.

I've been using it for a month now, whitelisted the app under Sony STAMINA
mode and the notifications are instant on mobile & desktop. Also brought
family and friends over and they're satisfied with the experience.

------
bikamonki
You can go get an off-contract sim card, use it on a _clean_ Android, create a
fake gmail account in order to download and install Whatsapp. Now you make
connections (you add family and friends to your contacts) and start
communicating. By now both FB and Google know who you are simply b/c other
people in your network, not concerned with privacy, have you saved on their
contacts list, pressumably under your first and last name. Using _analytics
data_ that you inadvertedly share through your usage habits, both companies
build a detailed online persona that will never be forgotten. B/c we are
creatures of habit and social bonds, it is quite easy to determine who you are
and what you do, by indirect information like your locations (gps),
connections (contacts), online presence (IPs), browsing habits, etc.

THERE IS NO ESCAPE. Unless you do what they themselves say you should do if
you do not agree with the terms: don't use their services.

~~~
ryandrake
You could always, I dunno... stop using Facebook and WhatsApp and other
software that you find harmful. I know, totally crazy idea. Just throwing it
out there.

~~~
snerbles
Facebook will still build a "shadow profile" of you, based on information
gleaned from contacts.

~~~
cortesoft
How could someone have me in their Facebook contacts if I don't have an
account?

~~~
AndrewKemendo
Because for example you could have sent them an Email, SMS or called at some
point and are in their phone contacts/contact book. That user then shared
their phone contacts with FB.

So even though you may not have signed up for FB, they have [your name]{your
number} in a table somewhere so that when and if you do sign-up it will be
easy to link you with people you already have contacted.

~~~
cortesoft
You know, in the old days everyone had a whole book that was basically a table
of everyone's name and phone number.

It was called the telephone book.

~~~
thecatspaw
sure, but that telephone book didnt include the conversations you had with
everyone in there

------
0xmohit
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...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-20/facebook-
faces-indian-court-challenge-on-whatsapp-privacy-policy)

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

~~~
logn
> 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.

~~~
corndoge
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.

~~~
anexprogrammer
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.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
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.

~~~
tw04
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.

~~~
ryandrake
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?

~~~
tw04
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.

~~~
ryandrake
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?

~~~
tw04
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.

~~~
ryandrake
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".

------
smoyer
Now things are going to get interesting! I completely understand the desire
for privacy but I think it's unrealistic to expect that Facebook won't
consolidate its data by user across all their applications. Facebook (and
Google, etc.) are now in the same business as the credit reporting agencies
... You are their only product.

My hope is that the increasing outrage will drive users to one of the secure
messaging applications.

Disclaimer: I have neither a Facebook nor a WhatsApp account.

~~~
greggman
I'm not sure I mind FB collecting data on my when using FB directly.

OTOH today I read a 10 minute article on an unrelated site about loneliness.
When I got to the end of the article an in page popup appeared that said
something along the lines of "Liked by 9571 people including your friend John
Smith".

I was extremely creeped out. What right does FB have for knowing that I read
some article on an unrelated website?

I immediately installed Ublock Origin, blocked facebook.com and messenger.com.
My plan is to delete all my cookies and run a separate chrome profile for
facebook. Not sure I'll be able to keep the discipline.

Yes I know Chrome saves some of the same data but you can optionally encrypt
it and Google at least claims they aren't using for ads
[https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/privacy/](https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/privacy/)

On the other hand Google's other services like analytics are probably tracking
me but so far they haven't been as creepy.

~~~
olegious
Clicking "like" on an article is a action that you take only if you want that
like to be seen by your friends. It is an inherently public action, don't see
anything wrong here.

~~~
FabHK
GP is not objecting to Facebook telling him that John Smith liked the article,
too. He is objecting (I think) to the fact that Facebook knows who he is (as
evidenced by knowing who his friends are), and knows that he just read that
article (as evidenced by telling him who among his friends liked it).

And that is creepy, I think, and one reason I have all the good adblockers and
tracking blockers and cookie cleaners that GP mentions installed, too.

~~~
olegious
If you're logged into FB and there is a relationship between the site and FB,
then why is it a surprise that the site is able to id you? And when I say
"you" I don't mean "John Smith from sf working for company X" but a number
with some generalized demographic data attached. There are strict pii
guidelines that adtech has to follow, no one really knows who you are. FB and
other adtech giants need to do a much better job educating the consumer about
what actually happens to data and how ad targeting works.

~~~
FabHK
Most people, I submit, don't log out of FB, they just close that browser tab.
So, basically, most people are always logged into FB.

Next, there is no obvious relationship between the site and FB - it's some
random article on some random other site, say the NY Times, on some random,
say potentially embarrassing topic. However, there's a FB "like" button, or
some other tracker.

Now, the site might just get some ID with demographic data (and hobbies and
what have you). But FB now knows that you read that article (how could it have
told you, otherwise, that John Smith read it?). That might not be a surprise
to you, having some knowledge in the industry, but I submit that many if not
most people find it both surprising and creepy.

Next, your argument seems to be that with some more education people would not
find it surprising, and neither creepy, because adtech is so well behaved and
under strict guidelines and "no evil" and all. So, at that point we'll just
have to disagree.

~~~
olegious
Sorry, I didn't mean to say that adtech as a whole is well behaved or cares
about user experience, if it was, ad blockers wouldn't be as popular as they
are. But I do think there is also an education issue where most people think
that PII is being exposed that makes it sound creepier than it actually is.

------
hiisukun
Regardless of how this ends up working or being decided, I'm very happy to see
such discussion occurring. The large scale collection of data on users has
benefits both nominally 'good' and 'evil' \- from app UX to advertising
profits. But equally interesting are the potential drawbacks involving privacy
concerns, and lack of user awareness.

It is this last point that I find best remedied by articles like this
appearing in widely available media publications. When a discussion is on HN I
might learn a lot and reflect upon my choices. When the nytimes and German
privacy commissioner start a conversation, I consider that even more valuable.

Hopefully a balanced outcome will occur, but I don't see that as important as
the inevitable education that comes with such public debate.

~~~
s3r3nity
This is probably nitpicky, but I'm not sure I buy this idea that "advertising
profits" are "evil" \- last I checked I happily use a Facebook account and all
its features, built by extremely hard-working and intelligent engineers,
without paying a dime. Not to mention the fact that I don't want to pay, and
some people just can't.

~~~
shopkins
It's not the _profits_ , but the _practices_ that generate those profits,
which people consider evil.

------
kbart
_“It has to be their decision, whether they want to connect their account with
Facebook,” Johannes Caspar, the Hamburg data protection commissioner, said in
a statement. “Therefore, Facebook has to ask for their permission in advance.
This has not happened.”_

That's a fair point. I don't use WhatsApp, so did it asked to accept new
privacy policy, terms & conditions or smth? Anyway, I'm happy to see that
institutions in Europe take a stance against big corps to protect its users
lately.

~~~
rmc
I don't think dense legalise in a click through can count as "consent"

~~~
danarmak
This is a real problem. What's the alternative? The TOS does need to express
the desired purpose and to hold up in court if required. Some licenses are
much simpler than others, but some are necessarily complex. The GPL is much
shorter than most click-through TOSs, but an average user still isn't going to
read it.

~~~
wsy
German law requires to use opt-in, i.e. the default setting of agreements to
transfer data to other parties must be 'no' (or the checkbox must be empty).
That way, it is very easy to make sure there is explicit consent to transfer
of data, and the service provider can't hide it in the TOS. Of course, the
service provider is also free to limit or close its services to users that do
not consent. That is actually what the German data protection watchdog refers
to: the WhatsApp setting that controls if the data is transmitted is by
default enabled (opt-out), but should be disabled (opt-in).

~~~
danarmak
I don't think this is very useful in most cases. Suppose a service requires
data transmission to operate, either intrinsically, or it just chooses to
require it. It displays a checkbox, unchecked by default, and unless the user
checks it, the service isn't going to work; checking the checkbox is
functionally equivalent to the "I Agree" TOS button. I expect users will check
the checkbox without reading any explanations, just as today they click "I
Agree" without reading anything.

And if this is a legal requirement, then service providers are greatly
incentivized to require data transmission as a condition of using the service.
If it's optional, then very few users will go into settings and enable it. If
it's mandatory, then all users are going to agree, in order to use the
service.

~~~
rmc
> _Suppose a service requires data transmission to operate, either
> intrinsically, or it just chooses to require it_

No services really _requires_ data transmission. It's just the owners have
decided to run it that way.

> _I expect users will check the checkbox without reading any explanations,
> just as today they click "I Agree" without reading anything._

Within EU Data Protection law, you have to get "freely given, informed
consent" for things. And a checkbox which links to 30 pages of legalese does
not necessarily count as _informed_ consent. Just because your users clicked a
checkbox/clickthrough, that doesn't mean you're in the clear legally.

> _if this is a legal requirement, then service providers are greatly
> incentivized to require data transmission as a condition of using the
> service_

Unrestricted data transmission (and processing) is _not legal in the EU_. EU
fundamental rights law specifies that. So you can't necessarily create a
service which from the start requires that sort of agreement.

~~~
danarmak
> No services really requires data transmission.

Some services do. For instance, Waze builds live traffic maps because all its
users upload their locations / speed / etc.

> It's just the owners have decided to run it that way.

Which is their right, as long as the users give informed consent. What I would
like to know is how, in practice, such consent can be sought or given.

> And a checkbox which links to 30 pages of legalese does not necessarily
> count as informed consent.

I'm not saying it does, necessarily. I'm asking what does count as informed
consent? Can you give an example of consent done right?

~~~
Klockan
Oauth popups is a good example of how to give consent. They are opt in and
usually say exactly to whom you share information and what kind of information
they will get.

------
makecheck
It’s unfortunately a good example of how easy it is for products to change: in
our current system, any nice thing is just one buyout away from becoming
something entirely different.

It’s a bit like when a restaurant starts out good or bad, and changes under
new management: it’s “the same” restaurant and yet it’s really _not_ the same
anymore, and consumers may or may not have gotten the memo. And it almost
doesn’t matter if it goes through 3 managers, from good to bad and back to
good, as the brand has already been tarnished and the damage is done.

I believe strongly that the hard work of hundreds of people shouldn’t be easy
to screw up just because the wrong people bought you out, and yet this happens
frequently: good projects are killed, and excellent work may end up going
nowhere. This is why open-source projects have so much value: they are very
difficult to screw up because there is always the option to fork it from a
good spot and keep all the good work alive.

------
nojvek
While Germany is protecting their citizens from facebook's shady privacy
policies, The US leaders argue about who has more stamina.

I'm very happy paying 1$ a year for privacy and security.

Whatsapp just re-iterated that they will say anything to fool its users and
break their promise.

Facebook should definitely get a fine in billions and should be made to
apologize publicly for breaching privacy.

~~~
zigzigzag
If you're paying $1 a year you don't have privacy: you just gave your _banking
details_ to the provider. Why do you think this is better than _optional_
linking to a Facebook profile that may or may not even use your real name, and
almost certainly does not have your street address on it?

~~~
AlexandrB
Banking details are far from then most damaging thing you can reveal. Things
like credit card fraud are usually insured by your bank and WhatsApp is not
getting access to peer into your account balance when you pay for something.

Facebook's data mining allows it to form a profile of your preferences, which
political groups you belong to, where you spend most of your time, and who you
associate with. This is all potentially damaging information - especially
under the right circumstances like the political tumult happening in Turkey.

------
Tomte
Hamburg's data commissioner is influential because he is very active and
outspoken (the previous one was even more so), but that also means that he's a
bit fast and loose.

His opinions and rulings are not always held up by the courts, and the other
states' data commissioners (there are fifteen more, plus a federal one) quite
often don't agree with him.

~~~
veddox
It just takes one loud voice to start a debate.

------
brogrammernot
This could send shockwaves throughout the entire web.

If the premise of the complaint is that users connecting with a facebook
account didn't explicitly give permission to use the data associated with it
then I imagine a swooping change will have to happen with all services that
use Facebook, google sign on as they'll have to explicitly gain user's consent
to use the exact information they're mining.

You might go, oh well they already do, I doubt it honestly and they likely
rely on implicit consent but I can see this having major shockwaves

------
AndrewKemendo
This is an important discussion, but nobody seems to be asking the question -
what is the end goal here for either side?

Lets take the extremes as a beginning..

1\. Lets assume every action a person takes is logged. That means every
keystroke, cough, heartbeat, meal, path taken etc... for everyone on the
planet is tracked somewhere in some system.

2\. On the flip side lets say that nothing is logged and we stop using systems
that track our behavior altogether.

\- What are the costs and benefits to either extreme and where would the
people of the future prefer to lie on that extreme? Is there a realistic
middle ground?

If the question is about informed consent then I am afraid it's a losing
battle. Consumers do not understand even the basic externalities of different
behaviors - and even if you printed them on the label it would mostly be
noise. So to expect that people will understand all possible negative
externalities with sharing data is a bridge too far.

I personally think that more accurate lifestyle data, provided by users to
Machine systems, with the purpose of affecting behaviors, based on stated and
revealed preferences of the users would be the best long term outcome.
Offloading decision making to a machine is the best decision we will ever make
as a species - and that requires a lot of training data and other data to
optimize.

Otherwise we might as well just go back to everyone being a farmer.

------
arviewer
This is why I like the Germans so much. They just do this stuff.

------
shkr
Yesterday, I opened whatsapp on my phone. During the last weeks I have been
clicking on the `Not Now` option when whatsapp gave me the new terms and
conditions. Yesterday, the not now option did not exist. This is not good.

~~~
aykutcan
What is not good ? What is the point ?

~~~
ffggvv
I think he means that he can't say "no" to the new terms anymore. But you are
right. But you're right, if the parent doesn't like whatsapp it should just
uninstall it.

------
throwawayReply
How does this work, if I travel to Germany and use WhatsApp is Facebook
compelled to delete all the shared data they have on me?

~~~
kuschku
Likely they'll do it based on the phone number prefix +49

~~~
nowlnowl
I sense a new market. German number-as-a-Service...

~~~
Grangar
This will be on Show HN in 2 weeks, calling it now.

~~~
webjunkie
Get one on Twilio, set it up so you get the verification code, finished.
Right?

------
FabHK
Can everyone just please install Wire [1]:

* free,

* end-to-end encrypted

* text and voice chat

* with pictures and group chat and what have you,

* using the Signal/OpenWhisper protocol,

* with desktop and web clients,

* open source (GPLv3, and on github [2]),

* signup with phone number or email,

* based in Switzerland,

* what else can you ask for?

Signal itself of course is pretty good, secure (recommended by Ed Snowden,
famously), but not quite as fully featured it seems to me.

[1] [https://wire.com](https://wire.com)

[2] [https://github.com/wireapp](https://github.com/wireapp)

EDIT: added license, web client

~~~
anotheryou
I have free choice on which messenger to use, but no choice at all on which
messenger to reach my friends. And sadly I know I'd loose all the less close
long distance friends if I refused to talk about private things on facebook
all-together.

It was hard enough to make some people switch to telegram, but at least some
of my frequent contacts arrived there. On signal I've been lonely ever since,
no Idea how to make people switch again. For PGP I lost my passphrase because
no one ever supported it and OTR doesn't work with my phone and nobody uses
it...

~~~
rietta
Yeah, I use PGP routinely, but really mostly as a way to get servers to
encrypt SQL backups and things. So my own system admin purposes without a lot
of PGP-encrypted communication with anyone.

------
bogomipz
If I were German I would feel pretty good that my government was willing to
stand up for my privacy. In an era when both civil liberties and expectations
of reasonable privacy seem to be falling by the wayside, even in countries
that purport to espouse such principles I think this is pretty awesome.

------
jsudhams
In India related [http://mashable.com/2016/09/23/india-delhi-high-court-
whatsa...](http://mashable.com/2016/09/23/india-delhi-high-court-whatsapp-
facebook/#S_DrdkKv.kqo)

------
thr0waway1239
Remember "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas?". I look forward to more
countries declaring themselves high-privacy zones to attract tourists.

Except for the privacy intrusion from all the other tourists, I suppose :-)

------
patrickaljord
Facebook asked WhatsApp users to give consent before collecting data, which
some did. Why should the government intervine between consenting adults
agreeing on a contract willfully? Isn't this the definition of tyranny and why
we oppose things such as the war on drugs?

~~~
khabaal
They did not. Opt-Out is not asking for consent. And even if you Opt-Out,
WhatsApp will submit your data to facebook for analytic purposes.

The real problem here was quoted as "misdirection of the [whatsapp] users and
the public" because WhatsApp stated that there wont be any data exchange
between them and facebook, when they were accuired two years ago.

~~~
patrickaljord
Doesn't the Whatsapp TOS says that they can update that TOS whenever and
however they want? Do you have to accept that TOS before using Whatsapp for
the first time? So users accepted a TOS that says Whatsapp can change their
rules as they wish and now they are angry because they did just that? I
totally support people who don't like these kind of TOS and use open source
alternative, but people who accepted these kinds of TOS and then complain when
they do what they state they would do, that I don't support.

~~~
kuschku
> but people who accepted these kinds of TOS and then complain when they do
> what they state they would do, that I don't support.

German law says ToS can not contain surprising terms.

That also means if an ad says "we won’t share your data, ever", no ToS change,
unless it’s more publicly published than the original ad, and as easily
noticeable and understandable, can undo that.

------
mkagenius
There is one funny one: [http://www.ndtv.com/blog/why-i-took-whatsapp-to-
court-by-a-1...](http://www.ndtv.com/blog/why-i-took-whatsapp-to-court-
by-a-19-year-old-student-1466535)

~~~
thecatspaw
"please turn off your adblocker" yeah, no thanks.

Do you have another link?

~~~
Mithaldu
Just load it with javascript disabled.

You may need to find a sane browser for that. Opera 12 does that job fine for
me.

~~~
strugglefun
or [http://textise.net](http://textise.net) .

Edit: Example Result:
[https://www.textise.net/showText.aspx?strURL=http%253A//www....](https://www.textise.net/showText.aspx?strURL=http%253A//www.ndtv.com/blog/why-
i-took-whatsapp-to-court-by-a-19-year-old-student-1466535)

~~~
hackernews2000
Instapaper is better for this:

[https://www.instapaper.com/text?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ndtv.com%...](https://www.instapaper.com/text?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ndtv.com%2Fblog%2Fwhy-
i-took-whatsapp-to-court-by-a-19-year-old-student-1466535)

------
davidf18
There is such a thing as being a good citizen on the net and part of that
should be that these privacy violating features be "opt in" so that people can
use them if they want to.

Maybe NY State where I live will pass some privacy laws.

~~~
cloudjacker
HA! Hahahaha funny, NY basically functions as the precursor to Federal
policies that have dubious privacy and civil rights merits

------
icantdrive55
I would like to see a federal Staute inacted regarding the collection of user
data in the US. Enacted quickly!

Something on the lines of don't collect any data, besides name, password,
email address. This information can never be sold.

I have weird feeling, in the near future, we will find that information/data
has been abused. No just abused by marketing/big data, etc..

And I'm not even arguing about the obvious--personal privacy. Although
personal privacy should be the number one reason for this hypothetical
statute.

I have a feeling, it will be the next big financial insider trading scandal.
It will involve people we talk about here-- Google/Bing/FB insiders(the ones
who can see individual IP's, and their data.), took all that information, and
traded stock upon it.

I have a hard time believing every email that Warren Buffet/George
Sorrows/every sussessful trader makes isn't looked at by someone. And it's not
just email; it collating search histories, in order to get a "feeling" of
where the money to is to be made.

They are then using that info. to invest in stocks, bonds, real estate, etc..

And yes, they will claim we don't care about getting insider info. on
investments--we make a killing selling the data to marketers. Why would we do
such a thing? Because you can. I would have a hard time not looking at that
information, and I don't have a penny to gamble.

I think it will be a huge story.

(Edit to a legitimate question about the poor websites that depend on
advertising.)

Yes--I didn't bring up advertising. They could advertise like the old days,
like newspapers did. They just couldn't target market their advertising--like
they presently do at nausium. I still think they would make their nut. They
would still be winners! And yes--I would pay for the right service, if they
couldn't manage to compete by being hobbled with not targeted advertising. I
paid for many websites before Google made advertising a science.

My post has nothing to do with advertising. I get advertising. Just leave my
detailed, personal info. out of it.)

~~~
chii
> Something on the lines of don't collect any data, besides name, password,
> email address. This information can never be sold.

Would you then pay for the services in full that you now could use for free?

~~~
belorn
If a sale person stood on the street and offered people to install tracking
software in their phones that will record every move, every call, every text,
which the customer is told will be sold at a nice profit to any one thats
willing to buy it with no oversight. At the end of one year, non-poor customer
that the company earned profits from from will get a one time compensation of
$20.

How many people will accept the deal, and why doesn't it already exist?

Or to ask a different question, will companies demand $20 for the services
instead of offering it for tracking-as-payment? How will they fare against
less polished services that are given away for free by people who run it on
their spare time?

~~~
Klathmon
They exist, and they do very well. Things like Nielson and others have been
doing something similar for many years, as well as countless surveys that can
pay you, and both of my parents have installed on seperate occasions a toolbar
which pays them pennies per day they keep it enabled, and when asked about it
they were fine with it recording everything as long as they get their payout.

~~~
belorn
I have seen those, but they are like you say about "pennies per day". Google
could not survive on that.

If we are comparing a regular $40-$20 software sale to pay-by-tracking, then
the people being tracked need to generate personal information that is worth
equal amounts. It need to have mass market appeal in order to generate
billions. How will pennies per day tool-bars do that?

------
Kenji
I don't understand why the state has to become involved. Let the free market
work and people decide for themselves.

I stopped using WhatsApp the moment I read that facebook bought it.

~~~
Dayshine
Because the free market is very slow, and it's a greater total harm.

Would you rather your child learned which items are hot by scarring themselves
each time?

~~~
Kenji
So, we the people are essentially children and the state is the parent? Nice
metaphor, you just proved my point that the state should not interfere.

