Privacy is a fleeting concept in our society.
The causes are many, but I’ve narrowed down the two main offenders: the Internet and the encroaching hand of the government. Think intrusive health care forms and federal agencies like the National Security Agency and FBI.
To a person that keeps his vitals close to the vest, loss of privacy is a terrifying and unsettling concept.
That, perhaps, may come as a surprise from a person whose column is labeled “From the Web,” given the sheer amount of information available on pretty much anyone on the Internet.
My Ozarks sensibilities seem to win out most of the time, and even online, I rarely use my actual name other than for work purposes and Facebook. As Jeff Kester of Carol Jones Realtors told Springfield Business Journal Editor Eric Olson for his recent column, “Time for Mo. to change sales disclosure laws,” I seem to fit right in with “our heritage of privacy and the ‘that’s none of your business’ mindset.”
Ironically, recent news related to a Facebook-owned app gave me some hope. The social media giant isn’t exactly known for keeping its users’ information away from others and advertisers.
So, it was with some skepticism that I cheered WhatsApp’s plan to heighten security on the messaging app by rolling out end-to-end encryption. Put simply, the service is based on a system where communication is only accessible by the people communicating.
That’s important for a service that claims over 1 billion users.
“No one can see inside that message. Not cybercriminals. Not hackers. Not oppressive regimes. Not even us,” said a blog announcing the change by WhatsApp co-founders Jan Koum and Brian Acton.
A friend of mine, who I communicate with through WhatApp, immediately questioned the viability of the change.
“Facebook owns WhatsApp and paid $19 billion for it,” said my friend, who also values his privacy and asked not to be named. “Their whole business model is using their massive user base for data mining. Where’s the profit in owning WhatsApp if they don’t have the ability to data mine?”
It’s a valid point.
Why would Facebook decide to encrypt this type of data? Are there other forces at play?
An Investopedia.com article dubbed “How Facebook, Twitter, Social Media Make Money From You” puts it simply.
“If you’re not paying for the product, the product is you,” wrote author Greg McFarlane.
Using information from your profile, Facebook and other social media companies target advertisements to you. It allows advertisers to directly communicate with customers it knows will be persuaded by their message using information the users themselves input online.
The expanded WhatsApp encryption could just be smoke and mirrors. As some have pointed out, despite the expanded security, metadata is still accessible. That includes records of who is speaking to whom, as well as the date and time of the messages.
Some media reports indicate that type of information can be valuable.
I’m reminded of another bit of tech news that’s popped up recently: the battle between Apple and the FBI.
After the FBI received a court order requiring Apple to break into an iPhone owned by one of the San Bernardino, Calif., shooters, the tech company declined, saying it would set a precedent for all of its users’ data.
The FBI ultimately hired a company to hack the phone, which is its own can of worms, but the fact Apple went to bat for its users is interesting. Does Apple truly care about its users’ privacy or does it simply want that information kept away from other companies?
I don’t know the answers, but I hold true to one Web axiom I’ve preached for some time: constant vigilance.
Be careful what you put online. Be careful with whom you give private information. It might come back in a haunting way.
Privacy is fleeting, but the concept of the individual can’t fully be converted into bits and bytes and ones and zeros – not if you don’t let it.
Web Producer Geoff Pickle can be reached at gpickle@sbj.net.
