privacy

One of the biggest reasons for migrating away from WhatsApp is privacy. It's been a problem ever since WhatsApp was launched. Indeed, I discussed it with the founders when it was new, ish, and they said that they had deliberately designed the system to create visibility between users. When I pointed out that a combination of various features compromised personal security, that was not something that concerned them... anyone can get your phone number, they said.

While the average article focusses on the announcement of WhatsApp's about-face regarding the implementation of advertising, its founders having repeatedly assured user that the messaging platform would never carry advertising, the bigger issue is this: Facebook, which bought WhatsApp and authorised those assurances, and guaranteed users privacy, is about to plunder WhatsApp user data and to make it available to third parties. USers have a stark choice: try to sort out a complex opt out (that depends on whether Facebook can be trusted and history repeatedly demonstrates otherwise), to accept the total loss of privacy in messaging or to leave WhatsApp entirely.

An Australian Court is the latest to say that a US headquartered company cannot refuse to produce information as to users who post defamatory statements. This time it's Google's "Blogger" / "Blogspot" service.

Facebook is to remove the facility for users to hide their profile from public searches. And that's not the only change the company is making in its latest round of alterations.

Solicitors in England and Wales have been issued with a new Practice Note (a non-binding guidance) relating to the use of social media including sites such as Twitter and Facebook. It reveals a fascinating insight into the ways in which supposedly transient media can trip up the unwary, and not just lawyers.