Why you should stop using WhatsApp: critical new update confirmed

WhatsApp may have eliminated its backlash on privacy, but there will be more if some of you lose access to your accounts. And, worse, WhatsApp’s nightmare until 2021 has exposed a serious problem for its 2 billion users that seems impossible. Millions more are likely to leave. Do you have to do the same?

As a security professional, it is difficult to recommend WhatsApp users to leave the app. The messaging platform has done more to popularize secure messaging than anyone else. But it was also obtained by the world’s most ominous data harvester. And it was always inevitable that at some point it would be taken into account.

WhatsApp has now faced its setback of privacy in 2021 – but it has done so by focusing on its security credentials, by playing data sharing with Facebook and ignoring its metadata harvesting problem. “Metadata – data about your data,” explains Cyjax CISO Ian Thornton-Trump, “is almost as powerful as the real data. ”

Let us not forget that the recent setback existed in two parts. First, Apple introduced its privacy labels, WhatsApp exposes for collecting much more of our data than Signal, Telegram and iMessage. Whether the data is shared with Facebook is important, but not as important as the reason for its collection.

WhatsApp’s privacy etiquette is terrible. It’s the only leading secure messenger that ‘harvests data linked to you’, including your device ID, harvests for ‘advertising and developer marketing’. It also collects your contact information, user ID and device ID for ominously vague “other purposes”. Other messengers collect your data to customize the features. WhatsApp harvests it for other reasons.

“Other Programs,” WhatsApp users have now said it“Say they are better because they know even less information than WhatsApp – we believe people are looking for apps to be reliable and secure, even if it requires WhatsApp to have limited data.”

But this is not ‘limited data’. It’s a long list of data all linked to your identity. We know why WhatsApp wants your metadata – because it tells us in its privacy policy. And no one claims that Signal or iMessage or Telegram are unreliable or insecure because they collect less data from their users. And how does WhatsApp’s collection of your advertising data match what your data ‘requires’ to keep its app ‘reliable and secure?’

Remember, if the product is free, then you are the product. It’s not complicated.

The second part of the setback, the forced change of provisions, hit hard because it looked like WhatsApp was collecting this data and sharing it with Facebook – that was the wrong report. That’s all right, WhatsApp said, we do not share everyone your data with Facebook. But suddenly WhatsApp shed a light on the fact that there is some data sharing. The fact that it is not new is hardly the point. Those privacy labels are strong.

More importantly, the rationale behind collecting all this data has been downplayed in the first place. It seemed like WhatsApps believed that the setback would blow over and we would all forget. We collect it because we need it, was the message. But there was no word on exactly what was used, and how. This is your data. You have the right to know what is collected and how it is used.

Yes, WhatsApp is a free platform. And they have the right to say that we collect certain data fields and use them to send you advertisements that may be relevant. We as users can then choose whether it is acceptable to us or not. What they are not what is entitled to do is unclear, to talk about the subject and refuses to offer transparency, to say that it is an inevitable and intangible part of this free service.

Ironically, most users accept that some form of data collection is a price worth paying for free platforms. But there must be a limit. And there must be transparency. It is impossible to argue that the data collection is proportional to the services offered. Facebook reported $ 28.1 billion in revenue last quarter – it does not make a living.

WhatsApp’s specific setback has been blown out of proportion. The change of provisions is more favorable than was reported (incorrectly) at the time. WhatsApp’s owner, Facebook, wants to enable its business customers to communicate with you on WhatsApp, and only if you agree to it. If you do, some of the messages may be stored outside of WhatsApp, outside of the fascinating end-to-end encryption.

This is a non-issue. Who cares about securing your messages with your dry cleaner or supermarket – especially since you have chosen in each specific chat? But it still breaks the existing provisions of WhatsApp for handling data, and therefore the change needs to be made. As WhatsApp says, it needs to sell services to keep the messenger free. But the change left WhatsApp open for further investigation of its metadata – and it did not go well. WhatsApp’s privacy issue is not going to be put in the Pandora’s Box again.

You now have a few weeks to accept the new terms of WhatsApp. After that, WhatsApp now confirmed in a not very useful questions: ‘You will first have the full functionality of WhatsApp before accepting it. It will be there for a short while, you can receive calls and notifications, but you will not be able to read or send messages from the app. ‘

WhatsApp says that “if you have not accepted by [May 15], WhatsApp will not delete your account, ‘but you will lose use of your account for a short period of time.

What does this actually mean? You will still have access to the account for a while, although you will not be able to read or send any messages. In WhatsApp terminology, your account will apparently become ‘inactive’. And here WhatsApp’s policy is clear. ‘To maintain security, restrict data retention and protect the privacy of our users, WhatsApp accounts are usually removed after 120 days of inactivity. Inactivity means the user has not connected to WhatsApp. ”

This is all confusing. WhatsApp has not yet said that it will delete accounts after the ‘short time’, or even how long the grace period is. But the media reports that deletion will take place and that it will not be rectified.

Even WhatsApp seemed confused about its plans because it delayed the deadline for accepting the new terms for February 8th. On January 15^de, WhatsApp said: “we will make sure users have enough time to review and understand the terms. Rest assured that we never intended to remove any accounts through this, nor will we do so in the future. . “

This means that accounts will not be deleted. And maybe they won’t – despite headlines warning them exactly that. I asked WhatsApp again if they would confirm any of this, and they did not want to reply. All WhatsApp says is that it ‘has extended the effective date to May 15th. If you have not yet accepted it, WhatsApp will not delete your account. However, you first have the full functionality of WhatsApp before accepting it. ”

Of course, one can be more cynical about a tweet sent on January 15, mid-backlash, assuring users that accounts will not be deleted due to the change in terms, ‘we never planned to post accounts on do not remove soil from this and will not do so in the future,Which was followed a month later by the news that accounts would be best excluded and, in the worst case, scrapped if the conditions were not accepted on 15 May.

WhatsApp also declined to comment on this apparent inconsistency.

Back in January, I advised users to stick with WhatsApp, although they might try other options, especially Signal, in parallel. I said that there is no reason to drop WhatsApp because the issue of changing conditions has been exceeded. But the way WhatsApp manages this situation can change the advice.

It was an opportunity to listen and engage, not to flash users with a smooth PR while sticking to Plan A. Apple changed the game by introducing privacy labels and removing ad tracking. Platforms must act and change the way they act, or they run the risk of losing users to alternatives that will do so. Facebook has made clear its position on Apple’s changes. WhatsApp does the same.

The new privacy conditions agree well; there is nothing to worry about. But the stubborn data collection of WhatsApp and the refusal to unlock or even assess the situation is purely Facebook. This is the clearest sign as to the direction WhatsApp is heading.

It is unrealistic for many of us to stop using WhatsApp altogether unless of course we refuse to accept the new terms. But to replace it as our standard messenger is feasible. After all, the same thing happened to many of us – while, ironically, we turned to WhatsApp. So is it seriously time to stop using WhatsApp? Maybe this time it is.