WhatsApp to share user data with Facebook

[Saracen]

The price of avoiding data gathering is far worse, in any measurable way. Hence my switch of tact.

That's my point. Not for me, it isn't. For me, the price of avoiding data gathering is sacrificing a few things I don't really want or need anyway.

An example is store "reward" cards, and discount websites. I don't, and won't use either.

The benefit is a bit of money back, or discount on what we buy. The price is the data collected. Suppose I'm buying, oh, a new monitor and I could get 20% discount through a website. Would I? Not if I can walk into a local store, pay cash and walk out with it. I have that arhument every time I use my local Screwfix and they ask for my postcode. Just put it down to cash, I say. But you won't get any warranty if you lose the receipt, they say. I won't lose the receipt, I point out, as I have all such receipts filed, both physically and electronically.

They always end up having to get the cash "code" ftom a supervisor/manager to accrpt cash without a postcode. The fact that it's such an exception to their nornal process to simply accept cash without logging who bought what shows their mindset.

[peterb]

Thank you

Cross platform is a big thing for me, I have an Android phone now, so does my daughter but my son has an iPhone and various other people I know have a general mixture.

I will get the kids to install it and will see how we get on.

Thanks again

There is Viber too, (mentioned earlier) which was eclipsed by WhatsApp, and that also runs on Desktop Linux platforms.

[Noxvayl]

Two things about that.

First, "impossible to make sense of".

If it were some human analyst looking at your "file" and trying to make sense of it I might agree, but that grossly underestimates the ability of data mining techniques to extract both inferences and information from mass volumes of data, and the degree of aggregation of data from multiple sources into a coherent picture.

Secondly, "I'd rather pay by ....". Fair enough. It's a value judgement. You choose to give up that data to everyone in order to get the "benefit" of services and/or devices. That suggests you either value your privacy a lot less thab I value mine, or you value the benefit of those devices/services a lot more than I do. Or both.

Thing is, there is no real "cognitive load" for me because I don't value the "benefit" of those devices and services highly at all.

To many, and certainly most younger people, even having a mobile phone at all is an essential. To me, it's a VERY mixed blessing. Yes, it means we can be "in touch" all the time, but that presupposes that to actually be an advantage. I regard it as very much a double-edged sword. For me, not being contactable at all times, but rather only when it suits me and most definitrly ONLY by those I want to be able to contact me at all times is a very high priority.

In other words, I value my privacy, and peace and quiet, and having control over making 99.999999% of the world leave me the hell alone, very highly. Other than a very short list of family and close friends, I don't want to be contactable 24/7. I certainly don't want unsolicited commercial contact, by anyone for any purpose, and never under any curcumstances by phone. I don't even want to be advertised at, and while an element of "broadcast" advertising is unavoudable, I don't want targeted, profiled advertising under any circumstances. I want advertisers to, at a minimum, leave me the hell alone and preferably, not even know I exist. I don't care what product they have, what offer they gave, who they are, what discount they want to give me or what gee-whizz new conrraption they've come up with, I don't want to be pesteted. Ever.

So I can't think of any benefit, to me, from them data-collecting from me, and I'm not interested in "social media" if they paid me.

The marginal benefit from mobile phones is achievable by having an old dumb phone and even that is off except for when I want it on. Some months, that's 0 minutes.

There are some uses I'd put a smart phone to IF it wasn't for the way they're abused by I can do without the cognitive load of trying to sort that small proportion of decent apps from the bulk of deceitful ones. Instead, I simply forego the very nominal utility of the little I might use by not having any of it. It's not much of a cognitive load to decide "Errr, no thanks" and forget about it.

I do think the rest of the planet is sleepwalking into a world where big corporates know far, FAR too much about us all though.

How long I can dodge it for, and to what extent, remains to be seen., Byt every place I ho without some GPS-aware device with me, every social media comment I don't make, every byte of data I don't create is a byte less than can be snooped on, vampired up by Google etc, stored, analysed, processed and data-mined. Every byte not created is a byte forever denied them and a byte less known about me. Which is how I like it. That which doesn't exist can't be analysed.

Unfortunately, I can't avoid such corporate data systems absolutely, or I would. All I can do is not unnecessatily or thoughtlessly feed the beast.

That's fair enough, but that whooshing noise is the sound of that going straight over the heads of about 95% of general users. It might fly among many users on a forum like this, but in general?

I've set my phone up so that I can not be contacted unless I want to be. I also have varying levels of priority to filter out those drunk dials and dofus callers among your contacts.

Advertising pisses me off as well, I'm so allergic to it that it angers me enough to stop watching TV all together. Sometimes I manage to last through 1 or 2 advert breaks. That type of advertising is most annoying though, the type used on Hexus for example is a lot more acceptable to me, because I actually like to learn about new gadgets, even if it is through advertising. I disable the intellitext nonsense though, I only use the hexus forums these days because of the excessive use of intrusive advertising that impedes my use of the site.

I like to try use the data gathering to my advantage, for example Tile. I leave one in my car at all times and can then pinpoint it when ever I like. The app then also works to show me where my phone is. I could have tracked and wiped the old phones I've sold, if I choose not to factory wipe them, thanks to this app. Coming from Africa that sort of peace of mind is worth a hell of a lot to me.

The cognitive load I was referring to was the constant vigilance you need to maintain in order to be aware of and spot any new ways in which organisations would like to gather data from you. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and that can be a double edged sword as well. We live under a social contract, one that sacrifices some freedoms for the security the government provides. It is a whole other question whether you trust your government and its ability to protect you from mischievous companies. Lets just say I trust the government enough...

I agree the world is sleepwalking, it always has done. At times we wake up, tends to happen when a revolution is afoot. What I disagree with is your assessment of data mining vs human analysts, we still write the code and therefore the analysis is still limited. Limited enough for me to be able to use it to my advantage should I need to, like changing my behaviours if I feel I am in trouble.

In general people can buy the Blackberry Priv that gives them the same protections as standard

That's my point. Not for me, it isn't. For me, the price of avoiding data gathering is sacrificing a few things I don't really want or need anyway.

An example is store "reward" cards, and discount websites. I don't, and won't use either.

The benefit is a bit of money back, or discount on what we buy. The price is the data collected. Suppose I'm buying, oh, a new monitor and I could get 20% discount through a website. Would I? Not if I can walk into a local store, pay cash and walk out with it. I have that arhument every time I use my local Screwfix and they ask for my postcode. Just put it down to cash, I say. But you won't get any warranty if you lose the receipt, they say. I won't lose the receipt, I point out, as I have all such receipts filed, both physically and electronically.

They always end up having to get the cash "code" ftom a supervisor/manager to accrpt cash without a postcode. The fact that it's such an exception to their nornal process to simply accept cash without logging who bought what shows their mindset.

I'm not a fan of reward cards as well... the use of "achievements" to encourage people to use one store over another. It is indeed telling how they simply expect you to part with that information. My thoughts on it is that they are simply building a map of customers to get an idea of how much reach a store has and whether they need to expand or not.

Data gathering is essential for healthy business to remain that way. I'll happily help the businesses I support to stay around.

[Saracen]

I've set my phone up so that I can not be contacted unless I want to be. I also have varying levels of priority to filter out those drunk dials and dofus callers among your contacts.

Advertising pisses me off as well, I'm so allergic to it that it angers me enough to stop watching TV all together. Sometimes I manage to last through 1 or 2 advert breaks. That type of advertising is most annoying though, the type used on Hexus for example is a lot more acceptable to me, because I actually like to learn about new gadgets, even if it is through advertising. I disable the intellitext nonsense though, I only use the hexus forums these days because of the excessive use of intrusive advertising that impedes my use of the site.

I like to try use the data gathering to my advantage, for example Tile. I leave one in my car at all times and can then pinpoint it when ever I like. The app then also works to show me where my phone is. I could have tracked and wiped the old phones I've sold, if I choose not to factory wipe them, thanks to this app. Coming from Africa that sort of peace of mind is worth a hell of a lot to me.

The cognitive load I was referring to was the constant vigilance you need to maintain in order to be aware of and spot any new ways in which organisations would like to gather data from you. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and that can be a double edged sword as well. We live under a social contract, one that sacrifices some freedoms for the security the government provides. It is a whole other question whether you trust your government and its ability to protect you from mischievous companies. Lets just say I trust the government enough...

I agree the world is sleepwalking, it always has done. At times we wake up, tends to happen when a revolution is afoot. What I disagree with is your assessment of data mining vs human analysts, we still write the code and therefore the analysis is still limited. Limited enough for me to be able to use it to my advantage should I need to, like changing my behaviours if I feel I am in trouble.

In general people can buy the Blackberry Priv that gives them the same protections as standard



I'm not a fan of reward cards as well... the use of "achievements" to encourage people to use one store over another. It is indeed telling how they simply expect you to part with that information. My thoughts on it is that they are simply building a map of customers to get an idea of how much reach a store has and whether they need to expand or not.

Data gathering is essential for healthy business to remain that way. I'll happily help the businesses I support to stay around.

On the first half of that, I'd say we are coming from pretty much the same place, but adopt a slightly tangential approach. We're similar, but not quite the same. One area of separation seems to be that you give corporates some latitude for valid reasons to data gather, whereas I don't. An example would be the very last bit about data gathering to see how much 'reach' the store has, to support them. My attitude is that I support stores I prefer by buying from them them but that that doesn't give them justification for starting to data-gather on me, without my explicit, informed consent. And by "informed", I mean open, honest and complete knowledge of the types of use to which my data will, and will not, be put.

Several years ago, I tried a little experiment with Screwfix and when they asked for my postcode, I supplied one. Had they merely wanted to assess "reach", then postcode would provide a sufficient level of granularity to any sensible analysis of "reach". But next, they wanted house number. And after I gave them one, they wanted name, and phone number.

Sorry, but that's not about assessing reach, but about gathering information that they could use to contact me or, worse yet, they could have sold on. Whether Screwfix did, or do, sell on data I have no idea, not least because the postcode, etc, was not mine and because adter discussing why they wanted phone numbers, I left without completing the transaction.

That's one example, but I could give you perhaps a dozen or so more.

Sometimes, organisations have valid reasons for wanting certain data. An example would be Scan wanting an email address in order to send "status" updates of an order/delivery. And fair enough. It's an understandable and valid use of data, and a phone number for SMS updates would be similarly valid, and useful, not just to the company but directly to the data subject too.

But personally, I don't mail order very much and when I do, I order when I know I'll be there to receive delivery. And, I can check order progress online. So, I see little or no benefit to me of giving out either email address or phone number because I don't want emails, mand I certainly don't want phone calls or text messages.

Scan, last time I used them, accepted that. It was a bit reluctantly, but they did. If they hadn't, well they're entitled to choose not to supply without the details they require, but as I wasn't going to provide them, I'd have ended up buying somewhere else, and possibly something else, too.

Everest, on the other hand, were a different story.. I wanted the whole house stripped of every door and window, and new ones installed, and I had a couple of other jobs too, including a decent-sized conservatory. When I asked them to come and quote, they wouldn't without a phone number. Again, their right, I guess to avoid wasting time on either hoax calks or people that simply forgot, and went out. However, But I DO NOT give my phone number to such orgsnisations. Not ever. So .... a local company got the order, and I have to say that I was an still am delighted with the results. I got the doors, windows etc I wanted, and Everest lost the order entirely because they wouldn't even visit to quote without a phone number.

Why wouldn't I give them the numver? Why so adamant? Because a few years earlier when I initially planned on doing the job, they kept ringing and pestering, months and months after I'd told them no, and after I'd asked several times to "stop bleeping phoning me".

My point is that once you've given up data, you've NO control over what it's used for. Oh, in theory the Data Protection Act stops companies abusing such data, but in practice, good luck getting done even if you can prove who did what.

Everest were one of the reasons I changed phone number, and put a call blocker contraption on the line, at a cost of about £100 I might add, to stop such calls.

So now, my view is that the cognitive load of adopting a rigid "don't divulge data" position as default, and only rarely giving in and giving it up where I'm convinced there's valid benefit to me, and not just to the company, in doing so.

For instance, neither my bank nor my utility company have my phone number. Why? Because in the past, both have ignored my explicit, written instruction NOT to call for telesales purposes under any circumstances. And both, even in the last couple of weeks, have again asked for my phone number. My answer was no.

In short, having been burned too many times, and having changed phone number as recently as a year or so ago, I'm extremely selective about who gets it.

I work on the basis that data I haven't given out can't be abused.

I disagree entirely, though, about the extent of the data from data mining. Modern data analysis is extremely good at churning through vast amounts of data and spotting trnds and extracting patterns that haven't been explicitly asked for, that haven't been specifically coded for. It is, if you like, inductive extraction. But the only way that works is having vast amounts of data to analyse, in order to spot patterns, trends and links that no human analyst would, and to do vast amounts of it. Every transaction I do that's anonymous, in cash, rather than via reward card, credit card, debit card or 'on account' is one more chunk of data that isn't, and never can be, linked to me.

There's no real cognitive load for me in that. These days, it's an instinctive and automatic "no", unless a truly impressive reason exists to say yes.

As for TV ads, I agree though have a different solution. I never watch TV live, except for advertless BBC material, and even that is usually time-slipped. Everything else goes onto a couple of recorders that given me fast and easy frame-accurate editing. So I chop adverts out before watching.

Sure, there's a time cost to that. Well, two time costs. One, to batch transfer to the recorders if I didn't record directly to them. It takss me a minute or two every night to transfer that day's crop of up to about 6 or 8 hours. Then it takes me 3 to 5 minutes to "de-advert" each 1-hr prog.

So I dump typically 20-22 minus of adverts, per hour, in 3-5 minutes, maximum. And then, get to enjoy the program without the jarring, distracting, mood-wrecking intrusion of the adverts.

[Noxvayl]

I like your style Saracen, especially the recording of programs

Three is two and two is one, if you only have a single phone number then you really have none. I have a phone number specifically for giving out to people I don't want to call me... so they can phone, they just won't bother me

As for the data mining... those trends they seek are highly unlikely to be for you as an individual, because you and I are not important to any company unless our data is aggregated with thousands of other people. The company cares about itself, and from a company perspective knowing individuals well is pointless, you need to understand consumer demand which is an abstraction of a group of people.

Feeding the beast incorrect information works well for me, I get all the benefits without providing any personally identifiable information.

[peterb]

I've thought about getting an 0870 number to give out to people who I don't want to call me, but if they do, at least I'd be getting paid for them wasting theirs and my time.

[Saracen]

...

Three is two and two is one, if you only have a single phone number then you really have none. I have a phone number specifically for giving out to people I don't want to call me... so they can phone, they just won't bother me
.

I wasn't going to go there. The last post was lomg enough as it was. But ..... yup. Snap. Ditto. For partly hidtoricsl reasons, I still have an 'old' landline which is rarely or never used for outbound calls. And two mobile phones, only one of which is in even semi-regular use. The other I charge occasionally, use about once per quarter for about 15 seconds, usually calling myself, jyst yo keep the SIM active and, yes, give that out on the rare occasions when needs demand it.

As for dsta mining, I'm sure no corporate is interested in snooping on me, personally. That's not my concern. But the more they can gather 'hard', known to be accurate, information, the more a given individual will end up 'selected'. Then, add to that inferences that csn be drawn ftom incredibly sophisticated analysis and the more information gets assocuated with you, either directly from hard info, or by inference from profile.

Bear in mind that the golden goose for advertisers is a massive database of highly accurate, highly granular information on everybody.


Then, when an advertiser comes along with a product to sell, they can be highly specific about the peole they want 'selected'. A common starting point for local business is going to be "within x miles of postcode=XX1 2YY".

But a national campaign migh target adults, aged 30-35, known to change smartphones evety year, that haven't upgraddd recently, that always buy high-end phones. Or it might target first-time parents with a child under 6 months. Or, single people, aged 23-35, income above £40k, for an exclusive dwti g site or a srubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishy new local gym.

Even a given transaction can set a distinct marker. For instance, some years back I bought a new BMW M3, and dud do outright, not financing it. I.e. paid "cash". Or rather, a vheque ftom a current account.

Data mining was nowhere near as sophisticated then, but these days, such a transaction on a record is a dead giveaway that that individual has a bank balance capable of handling a transacyion that size, and very likely an income or net worth such that they can indulge in fairly expendive cars without wanting or needing finance. I would not do such a transaction that way these days.

My in-laws booked a 3-month world cruise a few years back. That ONE transaction triggered a very marked change in the junkmail they received, both in vo.ume and nature. They are naturally quite reserved folks, living comfortable but modezt lives, very quietly, but indulging in a £30k per head cruise flipped a flag in some database somewhere.

My point is that the computers doing the analysis rely on masses of data, and the more they get, the more they can infer. Highly noticeable transactions, be they M3s or cruises, are easy to identify, but far, FAR more subtle links can be created from your supermarket shopping .ust, for example. It's not long before they know wgat you do and don't eat, and so based on that are a good cqndidate for some manufacturer's new product.

Add in geo-location data, your holiday records, the restaurants you eat in, shops you do (and don't) buy clothes from, and much, much more and it's not long before the holders if that database understand you better than you understand yourself. And they csn infer a lot more.

None of us can entirely avoid this, But I want the absolute minimum I can manage known about me, and yo kerp that granularity as large as possible. I probably can't stop my existance registeting, or postcode. But by ALWAYS paying cash in supermarkets and restaurants, I can (for now, at least) deprive them of granular knowledge of my food preferences, and everything that can be inferred from that, or the extent to which I do or don't eat out, from which a fair bit can often be inferred about both disposable income and lifestyle choices.

Nowhere in all this do I think these companies are interested in me, as me. All yhey sre interested in is whether I fit their target profile for a given exercise. If I do, then ding, I get pestered by junknail, emails, phone calls or targeted advertising online. And, as TV watching goes more on-demand and less and less broadcast, next will be targeted TV ads.

We're heading towards an advertiser's utopia where data detail will be high enough, and processing speeds fadt enough, that walking diwnba street with a GPS-enabled phone or even an RFID or NFC capable bank card, will see busineses, say a jewellers, look you up, guess at your income level and try to flog you either a Timex or Rolex accordingly.

Obviously, getting targetted ads might be seen by some (many, perhaps) as a good thing in that it implies getting more ads you might actually be interested in and less that you won't. The junk ads will be more relevant, and less junky. Fair enough, for those that want that.

Personalky, I don't actually want any ads. None whatsoever, regardless of whether some comouter things they're relevant to me. If I never saw another ad, about anything, in my entire life, I'd be delighted.

But, sadly, that's unrealistic. Since I can't get that, the next best thing for me is go make the advertiser's life as hard, fruitless and unprofitable as possible while at the same time, minimising the degree to which I EVER get targetted, by depriving them of every last byte of data I can.

If advertisers actually paid the slightest attention to people's wishes, and respected opt-outs, and things like MPS entries, I'd be a lot less negative about them. But I suspect if they did honour such wishes, quite a large proportion of people would, like me, opt out.

But as they don't, I shall continue to hope that if God does exist, he/she/it has a special level deep in the depths of hell reserved for advertisers, and that he/she/it hears my prayer that if Earth is ever going to get hit (again) by a large asteroid, meteorite, etc, could he/she/it kindly drop it right on top of Google's Head office, and/or data centres. Amen. Praise Allah and Hail Vishnu, or whatever.