WhatsApp co-founder tells everyone to delete Facebook

[vertigo]

Putting anything in the internet and then deleting it doesn't guarantee that the info really gets deleted. Some body could easily copy the data and store it somewhere else without any one knowing it. So, deleting FB is really useless, the more important thing is not to put any sensitive info in it.

That's not the point. He wasn't suggesting deleting FB to remove the info you've already put up. He's saying delete it 1) to prevent putting up more (and more, and more) info and 2) because the company has gotten way out of hand, is not trustworthy, and is unhealthy.

In the United States even our government cannot listen in on a phone just because they feel like it. I think these things have to be resaid now and then or the youth may begin to believe the paranoid.

The government has been proven over and over to be doing things it shouldn't be doing. Yes, technically and legally it needs a warrant to listen to phone calls; however, the government doesn't follow its own laws, and has been caught doing so. Furthermore, they are known for asking, sometimes successfully, companies to put in backdoors or provide them data on their users, such as with Yahoo, Verizon, AT&T, etc. You seem to forget that these companies have this info, because people use them to communicate, and the NSA doesn't need a warrant to obtain said info if the companies just hand it over. And getting a warrant, if necessary, has, at least in the past, been relatively easy in many cases. It may be getting harder now with all the attention this stuff is getting, but I wouldn't count on it. And finally, when they do try to get info, they are known for casting wide nets and requesting info on many, if not most/all, of a service's users. It's not paranoia when it's been proven this stuff has happened and continues to happen, and IMO it's irresponsible to ignore all the evidence and (recent) past events to convince the "youth" there isn't anything wrong with the government and how they behave.

 

[vtqhtr413]

I agree with most of that but the fatalism is mostly what I object to. If we should be getting excited about anything it should be problems that could actually be fatal.

 

[vertigo]

I'm not sure you're using fatalism the way you think you are. It doesn't actually mean fatal (deadly), but rather predetermined (destiny/fate). Though I'm not indicating either is the case. All I'm saying is that the government has been stepping out of bounds a lot lately, and it's the duty of the citizens to reign them back in, both by pushing legislators to do so and by taking measures to protect our own privacy. If we let them just continue to abuse their power, history teaches that things will almost certainly get worse and worse, and those that pay attention can see the path we're headed down. It's not paranoid or pessimistic, and certainly not fatalistic, to recognize the issues that are present in today's world, understand the possible consequences, and want to take steps to fix, and in the meantime reduce the impact of, these issues and the responsible agencies and organizations. And as I've said, it's not just the government I'm concerned about; I'm also concerned about (in fact, much more so than the government) corporations. As I've said, the government does (technically) need a warrant to see what you're up to, but your ISP, cell carrier, home phone provider, email provider, Google, Facebook, etc don't. You're using their services and, as such, are subject to their collection of whatever data they want. And things keep getting worse, not better, such as the ability for ISPs to sell data about you. Some people just flat out don't care, and that's their prerogative. Others don't know just how bad it is, and may or may not care if they paid attention enough to know. Personally, I prefer not to have everyone and their brother know every detail about me.

If you did mean fatalistic/fatal as deadly, then my only response to that would be that I'm not aware of deadly malware, and yet here we are on this site. I don't concern myself just with that which is deadly, and doing so would be foolish. If you meant it as it actually means, then it doesn't make sense to only be concerned with things that are fatal (predetermined), as by definition they cannot be changed, so there's no point in worrying about them. So I'm unclear on what exactly you mean. Would you mind clarifying, and explaining why you don't think this is an issue?

 

[Deleted member 65228]

In some countries, if you ask your phone provider if your phone has been officially "tapped", they have to provide a real answer to you. However won't have to notify you unless you request knowing.

Not sure in the US though, and of course if the phone provider is hacked which governments can do sometimes, then the phone provider wouldn't actually know so would say No because you wouldn't have to their knowledge.

 

[vertigo]

In the US, the company can be issued a gag order, which prevents them from telling their customers, even when asked. That's why warrant canaries were conceived, though it's questionable if even they can be counted on. And you're absolutely correct that the government might have access without even the carrier's knowledge, and I'm sure this has happened. But again, both of these aren't even always necessary. As I mentioned in my last post, some companies (Yahoo, Verizon, AT&T, probably others) have willingly handed over data on many/most/all of their users, without warrant. The NSA/FBI/police ask, and they provide, with no due process, because legally it's not required (again, it's the companies data, so they can do with it what they want as long as they don't violate their privacy policy or certain laws like HIPAA), and these companies apparently don't take their customers' privacy seriously.

 

[Deleted member 65228]

Skype probably goes through NSA servers lmao.

In the early days, US government was offering billions to anyone who could decrypt the encryption as Skype was off-shore to US and wasn't co-operating due to the original privacy policies.

Then a year or so later, Microsoft buy Skype out. The messaging and call functionality become slower and slower. In a way, Microsoft sort of killed Skype... It's just a RAM hungry eating pile of junk now, it doesn't even work properly. Full of so many bugs, some of which have been around since the introduction of Windows 10 Skype but still are not fixed.

 

[upnorth]

I'm not aware of deadly malware

Google Translate

 

[vertigo]

I refuse to use Skype simply because it's owned by M$. This is partially due to the fact that M$ has a tendency to ruin stuff, but mostly due to the fact I have absolutely no trust in them at all (which is the main, though not only, reason why I also stopped doing Windows updates a while back, but that's a whole other discussion, and yes, I'm aware of the risks involved and accept those risks). The company has no transparency, no respect for its users (really customers, but apparently they don't see them as such, because they certainly don't treat them like it), and it hypocritical beyond belief. As for Skype, I contacted them about the Android app, because they kept adding more permissions to it but never explained what the permissions were for. In fact, they never even bothered to mention them at all, so most people, who just auto-update their apps or update without actually checking things first, probably weren't even aware. So I contacted them, which was no easy feat (there was no way to do so through the app or via the Play Store page, and it took a lot of digging to find a way to do it online, as there was no easy readily accessible option, which isn't a surprise and only further shows how little they actually care about user input), and asked about it. I was told they would add info about the permissions, but of course they never did. And the real irony of all this is that it was shortly after their whole "Scroogled" campaign, in which they make Google out to be an evil company that collects all your data (which it is) and act like they're so different, when in fact they're just as bad.

 

[Deleted member 65228]

On Samsung Galaxy S8 for Skype application I can use Skype perfectly fine but block it from doing specific things like accessing my media, contacts, etc. However the Skype app for the S8 is customised, its not the same one as on other Android... So it's designed for the S8 specifically which is likely why I can do this now and why I couldn't before.

I can also temp allow it and it will auto be blocked after the session if I needed to send a document so needed to remove the restriction temporarily without having to go in and out of Settings etc.

 

[vertigo]

Google Translate

Touché. Despite my statement, I am aware than malware can be used in this way. In fact, just last night I was talking with my dad about the future of self-driving cars (I'm more optimistic about it than he is, though still cautiously so) and as I said to him, one of the biggest concerns I have about it is the ability for the cars to be hacked, which would wreak all sorts of havoc. I guess when I said that I was thinking on a more personal level of what we as individuals should worry about. I don't worry about malware infecting my computer or personal devices and putting my life at risk (though I suppose even that's possible), nor do I worry (much) about the potential for medical equipment to be hacked or infected. I leave those big concerns up to security researchers and personnel, since there's not much I can do about them. But as a citizen, I can (and I believe should) do what I can to make the government more accountable and transparent and to protect myself from it when it's not. Just like I don't worry about thwarting terrorism or crime, since that's way beyond the scope of what I can do, but that doesn't mean I don't still take precautions to protect myself, keep vigilant, and report criminal activity or suspicious things to the authorities. To me, turning a blind eye to the government surveillance and snooping is akin to driving through a neighborhood and seeing burglars break into houses and just continuing on, not calling the cops, just because it's not affecting me. But that's just me.

 

[Deleted member 65228]

Cars can already be hacked because modern cars are connected to some sort of network, however the thing is it usually is not as simple as just remotely doing it all in one. Usually requires physical access to the car for X amount of time to replace hardware/intervene with the mechanics, then allowing remote access. Reason is because all car features tend to link up to one heart core in the car. So the window controls, car engine etc will all sync to one component which control handles it all. And if that became compromised, can be controlled remotely.

There's videos on YouTube of government employees at NSA and other places demonstrating car hacking in a real life scenario in a car park and similar, allows them to remotely control the car to make it self-drive and reverse back, window controls, etc.

However it is true, with these new self-driving cars, the hacking potential is even higher because it would be a more exposed network and actually connected to somewhere even more vulnerable than in today's normal car implementations. Probably easing remote car hacking with 0 manual intervention with the car mechanics...

 

[vertigo]

On Samsung Galaxy S8 for Skype application I can use Skype perfectly fine but block it from doing specific things like accessing my media, contacts, etc. However the Skype app for the S8 is customised, its not the same one as on other Android... So it's designed for the S8 specifically which is likely why I can do this now and why I couldn't before.

I can also temp allow it and it will auto be blocked after the session if I needed to send a document so needed to remove the restriction temporarily without having to go in and out of Settings etc.

All phones running newer versions of Android can all do this. I think it started with 5 or 6, but got a lot better with 7, though you still can't choose for all permissions. But even if I can do so, many people are still using older versions of Android that can't. I was one of them when Android first starting allowing permissions to be selectively enabled/disabled, and until I got a phone with a newer version, I had to resort to rooting and using Xposed with a module to add this functionality. Some are aware of this limitation of their older OS and, despite their desires to the contrary, are forced to accept all permissions. Most are blissfully unaware. Regardless, I feel a company, especially one that advertises that they're so great when it comes to privacy and so much better than their competitor, shouldn't rely on users both knowing about the permissions and their importance and having the ability to control the permissions themselves. They should be transparent, making it very clear what they're doing and why, so those that do care can see what they're doing and keep an eye out for those that don't know better. Of course, even then it relies on trusting what they say (transparency doesn't equal honesty), but at least it's a step in the right direction, and when a company absolutely refuses to explain such things, I can only wonder why, not to mention it shows a lack of care for their users/customers.

And I think it's funny (sad, actually) how Google claims to be so concerned about privacy and security, yet over the years I've watched as one change at a time they've made it harder to see when apps are requesting new permissions (though, to be fair, they did finally implement the ability for the user to adjust them) and the way the permissions are implemented is horrible from a development, user, and security standpoint. For example, allowing any permission in a group allows all permissions in that group, and most people, even many that do concern themselves with permissions, don't realize that, which is perhaps even worse than the issue itself, because Google is allowing people to be lulled into a false sense of security, which in many ways is worse than no security at all.

 

[vtqhtr413]

This is what I meant, " but rather predetermined (destiny/fate)." the sky is falling, its wearing on me. You are well spoken and I'm sure I will appreciate your input here in the forum. You had me at post #23.

 

[vertigo]

Cars can already be hacked because modern cars are connected to some sort of network, however the thing is it usually is not as simple as just remotely doing it all in one. Usually requires physical access to the car for X amount of time to replace hardware/intervene with the mechanics, then allowing remote access. Reason is because all car features tend to link up to one heart core in the car. So the window controls, car engine etc will all sync to one component which control handles it all. And if that became compromised, can be controlled remotely.

There's videos on YouTube of government employees at NSA and other places demonstrating car hacking in a real life scenario in a car park and similar, allows them to remotely control the car to make it self-drive and reverse back, window controls, etc.

However it is true, with these new self-driving cars, the hacking potential is even higher because it would be a more exposed network and actually connected to somewhere even more vulnerable than in today's normal car implementations. Probably easing remote car hacking with 0 manual intervention with the car mechanics...

Right, but as you said, current cars require a lot of mechanical work to allow them to be remotely driven with a hack. They can't just be remotely hacked and cause them to suddenly veer head-on into another car. At worst, remotely hacking a current car would allow it to be shut off, which would cause you to lose power steering and brakes. To do more would require access that would be hard for even the NSA: they would have to do something to it to cause you to bring it into a shop, then take it from the shop to a facility where they would work on it, while keeping the shop quiet. Self-driving cars, OTOH, would merely require hacking the network, not even the individual car, and they could make thousands/millions of cars do whatever they want. Another topic I discussed with my dad last night was the recent X-Files episode (the one with the drones and AI), which I told him was, while strange, one of the more creepy episodes of the show, since that's a more or less realistic future scenario (not so much the machines doing it over a tip, though you never know, but the AI going nuts and being able to accomplish so much to mess with and endanger them).

 

[MeltdownEnemy]

Super!
Never use Facebook, WhatsApp, Signal, Minds...View attachment 182845Stop Bad Habits.jpg

I envy you so much, since 2010 im using facebook when msn it fell hahaha, how to learn to be less foolish? I've been very careless. still using products like microsoft, google, twitter, facebook. and I cynically have not believed it. it's time to wake up

 

[vertigo]

This is what I meant, " but rather predetermined (destiny/fate)." the sky is falling, its wearing on me. You are well spoken and I'm sure I will appreciate your input here in the forum. You had me at post #23.

I do try not to be pessimistic to the point of "the sky is falling" and, while it may not seem like it, I actually don't worry about this stuff all the time. I still use the regular phone and regular SMS and FB chat and so on. But I also think it's important to pay attention to what's going on and to resist the government's constant push for more power and secrecy, that's all. And while I don't personally think it would get to the point of true oppression, I do think the government is becoming more oppressive and that we need to be careful it doesn't go too far or, if you believe, as I do, that it's already gone too far, we need to try to get things back on the right track. And just in case things do get out of hand, it would be nice to have tools like Signal, Tor, encryption, etc, as seen in China, for example. But I do think the topic went off on a tangent, as my main point wasn't about using these tools as privacy shelters from the government; that's just a side-benefit. I mainly use them to protect my privacy from companies. I've had my data leaked so many times, resulting in my identity being used to try and open credit card accounts, not to mention the frustration of getting a letter or email roughly once a year saying my data has been lost or stolen. And that's "just" the "important" stuff. That's just the tip of the iceberg compared to the amount of info about everyone that's out there being collected by Google/Microsoft/Facebook/Sony/etc that gets sold, stolen, leaked, lost, or otherwise finds its way to unscrupulous individuals and/or companies. With all of these concerns in today's world that didn't exist a decade or two ago, it just surprises and concerns me that more people don't take it seriously. And I'm not saying they have to put their tin foil hat on, I'm just saying be careful about what services you use and what info you put out there. As the government itself teaches, one or two pieces of information on their own might not be useful to an adversary (this can be extended to "company that wants to know more about me than I do so they can sell me stuff"), but multiple individual pieces of info can add up to create quite a useful picture.

 

[vertigo]

I envy you so much, since 2010 im using facebook when msn it fell hahaha, how to learn to be less foolish? I've been very careless. still using products like microsoft, google, twitter, facebook. and I cynically have not believed it. it's time to wake up

It's hard not to. Depending on your job, you may have to use some of these. I use M$ because Linux just doesn't serve my needs. I use Google because Android does serve my needs, and there's not a good alternative, though I use Gmail very little, both due to it being Google and because I absolutely hate it. Never got into Twitter, never used FB much, but do have an account mostly for others to contact me and to talk with people using Messenger (not by choice, but because it's what they use). Heck, I still have Yahoo as my main account, despite hating it and wanting to switch for years, even more so after learning about their cooperation with the government, because I haven't found another service yet that I really like, and don't want to go to the effort to switch just to do it again.

 

[MeltdownEnemy]

It's hard not to. Depending on your job, you may have to use some of these. I use M$ because Linux just doesn't serve my needs. I use Google because Android does serve my needs, and there's not a good alternative, though I use Gmail very little, both due to it being Google and because I absolutely hate it. Never got into Twitter, never used FB much, but do have an account mostly for others to contact me and to talk with people using Messenger (not by choice, but because it's what they use). Heck, I still have Yahoo as my main account, despite hating it and wanting to switch for years, even more so after learning about their cooperation with the government, because I haven't found another service yet that I really like, and don't want to go to the effort to switch just to do it again.

I think that a good decision its into change the entire computer and start again other identity on windows and navigators with hard policy rules, I cant imagine they've collected someone's entire life from the first day acquired the new computer, we can be much smarter when it comes to tripping over the candy that these services put in us, candy with toxics. the amount of mistrust accumulated is asphyxiating, We are unhappy because of insecurity in most services, mainly if the chat, private mail messages and searches were viewed by hosts, second & third parties, and sell your information, or when anyone asks for it to known who is you with complicity of corrupt organizations & political interests. I know you can't combine anonymity, privacy and security into perfect harmony, but you can reduce the amount of data sent. days ago I was testing several distros. the one I loved was debian just to navigate and doing basic things..

 

[vertigo]

I think that a good decision its into change the entire computer and start again other identity on windows and navigators with hard policy rules, I cant imagine they've collected someone's entire life from the first day acquired the new computer, we can be much smarter when it comes to tripping over the candy that these services put in us, candy with toxics. the amount of mistrust accumulated is asphyxiating, We are unhappy because of insecurity in most services, mainly if the chat, private mail messages and searches were viewed by hosts, second & third parties, and sell your information, or when anyone asks for it to known who is you with complicity of corrupt organizations & political interests. I know you can't combine anonymity, privacy and security into perfect harmony, but you can reduce the amount of data sent. days ago I was testing several distros. the one I loved was debian just to navigate and doing basic things..

I doubt even trying to wipe the slate clean would be enough. Even if we're not to the point of it already (though I think we either are or we're close), AI can analyze patterns across the internet to associate different "identities" with each other and determine with a good amount of accuracy that they're the same person, and then build a profile of that person based on it, which would further help to find more breadcrumbs. In fact, I seem to recall reading something about just this in the past couple days. Anyways, I think it would be either impossible or very, very difficult to accomplish. My goal is just to protect my privacy as best I can within reason and to push for better privacy and more transparency all around. And I use Google search, knowing full well they're collecting data on me, because it does work very well. Just like I use many apps, on my computer and phone, even though they're likely spying on me, because the services they provide are useful to me. I just try to use the ones that are the most open about what they're doing or require the least amount of access, and I don't openly provide all of my life's details online.