The complaint also said Snapchat transmitted users’ location information and collected sensitive data like address book contacts, despite its saying that it did not collect such information. The commission said the policies allowed security researchers to compile a database of 4.6 million user names and phone numbers during a recent security breach.
It's pretty obvious the government doesn't like to tangle with big companies unless its necessary. Large corporate legal teams can drag out a fight for several years, earning the ire of state senators voting constituents, and having a negative effect on their re-election possibilities.
You should read Matt Taibbi's new book "
The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap". It explains how this system of "well, if it's a company doing it then I guess we can't press charges" came to be.
Not to mention this "20 year of privacy policy monitoring" seems to be all but useless. They have that for Facebook, too, and I don't think it's a hassle for them in changing the privacy policy every few months without even notifying its users at all. It's just business as usual for Facebook, and I assume the same will happen with Snapchat.
I think this 20 year policy has only 2 purposes:
1) appease the public and show them that they're "doing something", no matter how useless that thing is
2) possibly blackmail these companies to give the government their data more easily next time they request it - or else.
I appreciate that the FTC is trying to do right by consumers - it's a great mandate. This Snapchat issue seems so inconsequential compared to two areas I'd love to see them addressing - net neutrality and data privacy across all services.
Broadband market regulations like net neutrality are, to the extent any federal agency has jurisdiction, within the jurisdiction of the FCC not the FTC. I'm not clear that FCC has authority to do much more than it is on data privacy.
Also note that there is as difference between regulatory actions and enforcement actions. The later are inherently smaller in scope but necessary for the former to be meaningful.
I'm neither a lawyer nor a politician. But the FTC's mandate is to protect American consumers, "To prevent business practices that are anticompetitive or deceptive or unfair to consumers". And those are the consumer issues related to tech that matter right now.
It's funny that the FTC was upset that Snapchat couldn't prevent users from taking a screenshot. It's obvious Snapchat cannot prevent that - the user could always point a camera at screen, too.
It's obvious to a software person. The question is whether they made that obvious to their non-technical user. It seems to me that their marketing loves to imply that the message disappears and there is nothing that can be done to save it.
What is curious to me, is this seems like small fish compared to years of "unlimited" and "free" being abused in marketing.
In their defense, when the SnapChat founders were on Colbert awhile back, they were emphatic about saying, "There are many ways it can be saved!" And, were warning users that it's just a convenient thing, not any true protection.
But, yes, users can be easily confused, and they (intentionally?) got more downloads / users because people mistakenly believed that the images were 100% deleted.
For the HN/Techie audience, we of course never believe anything digitally transmitted to a recipient can be 100% deleted by the sender. Nothing will ever prevent brute force things like "having a camera over my shoulder, recording my screens".
20 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 48.0 ms ] threadIt's pretty obvious the government doesn't like to tangle with big companies unless its necessary. Large corporate legal teams can drag out a fight for several years, earning the ire of state senators voting constituents, and having a negative effect on their re-election possibilities.
I think this 20 year policy has only 2 purposes:
1) appease the public and show them that they're "doing something", no matter how useless that thing is
2) possibly blackmail these companies to give the government their data more easily next time they request it - or else.
Also note that there is as difference between regulatory actions and enforcement actions. The later are inherently smaller in scope but necessary for the former to be meaningful.
"Any company that makes misrepresentations to consumers about its privacy and security practices risks F.T.C. action.”
What is curious to me, is this seems like small fish compared to years of "unlimited" and "free" being abused in marketing.
But, yes, users can be easily confused, and they (intentionally?) got more downloads / users because people mistakenly believed that the images were 100% deleted.
For the HN/Techie audience, we of course never believe anything digitally transmitted to a recipient can be 100% deleted by the sender. Nothing will ever prevent brute force things like "having a camera over my shoulder, recording my screens".