Furthermore, at this point I'm having two questions about it:
1. The notice clearly said that if I didn't accept I wouldn't be able to continue to use WhatsApp after some date in the past (I don't remember it exactly). This is clearly not true. Wouldn't this fact be grounds for invalidation of all consents they gathered before?
2. At this point I must have declined accepting at least 100 times. Shouldn't it be required to have a "no, never" option in there? In its absence, shouldn't I be able to make the case that the one time I click on "agree" it was by mistake? How is this method of agreement valid whatsoever?
That's what they want you to believe. The other point is:
> Additional Information On How We Handle Your Data. Our updated Terms and Privacy Policy provide more information on how we process your data, and our commitment to privacy.
How nice! However, this is specifically targeted at GDPR-covered users. GDPR won't allow them to do anything that is not explained (and hence "consented" to by the user).
To me, the logical conclusion is that their lawyers went "we can't do XXX, YYY, ZZZ unless we explain them explicitly". Then their marketing team spun it up as "look at how nice we are".
The reality is that they wouldn't explain shit unless they absolutely need to. Since they didn't explain before, I'm pretty sure there are things they can't (legally) do with my information under the previous agreement that they would be able to (legally) do with the new one.
Furthermore, at this point I'm having two questions about it:
1. The notice clearly said that if I didn't accept I wouldn't be able to continue to use WhatsApp after some date in the past (I don't remember it exactly). This is clearly not true. Wouldn't this fact be grounds for invalidation of all consents they gathered before?
2. At this point I must have declined accepting at least 100 times. Shouldn't it be required to have a "no, never" option in there? In its absence, shouldn't I be able to make the case that the one time I click on "agree" it was by mistake? How is this method of agreement valid whatsoever?