

Amazon, AT&T, Snapchat rated among the least trustworthy with data, EFF finds - suprgeek
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9248384/Amazon_AT_amp_T_Snapchat_rated_among_the_least_trustworthy_with_data_EFF_finds

======
sswezey
I think the article and the report fail to mention what other organizations
and companies are able to access your data. Several of these companies are
known for using your data as a direct source of income and selling ads or
using your likeness for financial gain. Companies like Dropbox, Wikimedia, and
Adobe don't use your personal directly for financial gain. Companies like
Google, Facebook, and LinkedIn use the data you provide them for direct
financial gain. Sure, you know this going in, but they are still selling
information about you to other parties.

To this effect, yes, it is nice to know what they are reporting to
governments, but it'd also be nice to know what they are reporting to NGOs as
well.

~~~
skj
> but they are still selling information about you to other parties

citation needed

~~~
eightofdiamonds
Advertising.

~~~
huntsman
I think we need to draw a distinction between selling data about individuals
to third parties and showing ads based on understanding of a user's interests.
People may disagree with both but lumping the two together just confuses the
debate.

------
discodave
OK, I might be a bit biased because I work for one of the companies involved,
but the scoring system seems kind of silly to me. Companies get one star for
fulfilling each of the six criteria but they don't seem equally important to
me:

1\. requiring a warrant for data 2\. telling users about government data
requests 3\. publishing transparency reports 4\. publishing law enforcement
guidelines 5\. fighting for users' privacy in courts 6\. and publicly opposing
mass surveillance

1\. Seems like the most important to me, followed by 2. and 5.

It seems silly that companies could get three "stars" in this analysis but not
even require a warrant for data.

~~~
eurleif
I'm surprised that not requiring a warrant for content is a thing. My
understanding was that warrants being required for content was statutory.

I took a look at Snapchat's law enforcement guide[0], and it does say that
they will turn over everything they have with only a subpoena. However, the
records they say they will provide all look like metadata, not content. The
guide mentions "Log of the last 200 snaps sent and received (similar to phone
record)", but I believe they are talking about metadata associated with the
snaps, not the pictures themselves. "Phone records", in this context, refers
to phone metadata (logs containing numbers called, etc.). This Techcrunch
post[1] also says that Snapchat deletes photos from its servers as soon as
they are delivered.

If the reason that Snapchat doesn't require warrants is that they keep fewer
records than other providers, and don't have the type of records for which a
warrant is required, that should not be considered a privacy negative for
them.

The EFF's report also claims that AT&T and Comcast don't require a warrant for
content. However, that isn't because either company has been implicated in
actually handing over content without a warrant; it's just because they don't
explicitly mention requiring a warrant. But, again, as far as I understand,
requiring a warrant for content is in the statutes.[2]

[0]
[https://info.publicintelligence.net/SnapchatLawEnforcementGu...](https://info.publicintelligence.net/SnapchatLawEnforcementGuide.pdf)
[1] [http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/09/actually-snapchat-photos-
ar...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/09/actually-snapchat-photos-are-just-as-
deleted-as-any-other-file-you-trash/) [2]
[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703)

------
general_failure
Surprised to see amazon here. Mmm. You know if I shop for stuff all of a
sudden everyone seems to know. Every website will show me related ads. Now
that I think of it..

~~~
theboss
Also all browsing, including your cart, is served over HTTP until you go to
the checkout page. You can't browse over https even if you explicitly ask for
it. They don't need to ask Amazon for data if they have a router between you
and them.

~~~
Scoundreller
One of the reasons why I believe GOOG moved toward defaulting to HTTPS is not
for your security, but to ensure that only they have a copy of your browsing
history, research interests, etc.

Once someone in the middle has a copy, the value of their trove of data falls
precipitously.

I'm surprised as well that Amazon doesn't use HTTPS, they have a lot to gain
by being the only one that knows you're interested in a particular book and
not anyone else. It could help them get the sale instead of competitors
relentlessly targeting ads against you as soon as you express an interest to
their site.

~~~
mattmanser
(not provided)

------
rahimnathwani
HN discussions on the original report:

Some comments:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7754065](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7754065)

Zero comments:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7751352](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7751352)

------
sergiotapia
I find it hilarious how Snapchat is mentioned in the same breath as AT&T and
Amazon. The bubble is real.

------
RollAHardSix
And yet, the DOD uses Amazon as a hosting provider...

------
coreymgilmore
I know the article was about technology companies, but I find it interesting
that there wasn't a single reference or comparison to the trustworthiness of
government with data. It would seem that with all the recent
leaks/news/reports, that this would at least have been brought up.

In other news, Amazon is a surprise. Then again, it is a surprise (head
scratcher) that they still do not use https everywhere. Snapchat on the other
hand is....snapchat. Nothing is gone forever this day in age.

------
cordite
I feel like this totally picks on Snapchat. So they run an ephemeral data
service, but probably don't profit so much like Google or Facebook to do
anything in court.

If a company doesn't have any data to hand over, that should give a few
points, not just ignore it.

~~~
us0r
Not really.

Snapchat Settles FTC Charges That Promises of Disappearing Messages Were
False:

[http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-
releases/2014/05/snapch...](http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-
releases/2014/05/snapchat-settles-ftc-charges-promises-disappearing-messages-
were)

~~~
cordite
Whelp, that flipped my opinion.

