[pilif]

What really annoys me about this: I don't get a warning when this is happening. I had an account with them and now Facebook owns that data with zero recourse for me.

Sure - the moment I read this, I deleted my account and the app, but who's to say that the data is really gone now and hasn't been copied to Facebook before this?

First they got all my WhatsApp messages and now my Moves data.

No longer can I chose to not share data with Facebook when they can just come in and purchase it after-the-fact. This will certainly make me even more careful whom I'm willing to create an account with.

Up until the WhatsApp and Moves deal, I had this rule that if I pay for it, it'll probably going to be independent because whoever's running it will be able to sustain it.

But now that this is out of the window, what's left as an indicator? How can I use a service if I don't want the data I create/store there to end up at Facebook?

[JonFish85]

Short answer: you probably can't. I'm sure there's something in the legalese in the Terms of Service about how they are able to sell the company. Technically Moves still owns the data, but they are now owned by Facebook, so I'm sure they reserved the right to sell their company.

The only way I can think of is if you can find a service that has a legally-binding promise to notify you with ample time to terminate your account and remove your data before merging with another company. But I'd be shocked if many/any companies do this, because they'd be hamstringing their value.

[bertil]

Actually, there isn’t anything in that (kind of) contract other than the fact that the contract is with the company (Moves Oy, WhatApp Ltd.) If Facebook buys out that company, then the contract is the same, but with a subsidiary.

Even promisses to destroy in the contract wouldn’t be enough — because the entity that would promise to delete your data wouldn’t exist as soon as there is a legally binding event.

At the moment, the only thing protecting you from that are competition authorities. If you can file a request for consideration saying that this would harm their users overall (not just isolate case: Competition authorities deal with economic policy, not individual cases), then you might block the overall sale.

As someone who’s digged for years into current principles, I can say taht we are not even remotely close to having proper understanding by the lawyers of what kind of harm is at stake, let alone measuring it; from there, wait ten years and a couple of controversial cases to make it into effective policy.

[ambivalence]

How do you mean "All your WhatsApp messages"? Isn't it by design that WhatsApp only ever stores undelivered messages? Once they reach the recipient, they're gone from the servers. This lets the infrastructure be really small compared to the number of users on the system.

[pilif]

Who knows what they do with the messages. They certainly weren't peer-to-peer encrypted, so for all we know, they were storing a copy "for later use".

Even if they weren't initially, they could have started storing them whenever they wanted without telling anybody or any other indication that they would.

Especially since the deal with Facebook, assume all messages to be kept around and linked with your profile.

[grahamel]

They back the messages up if you selected it in the settings (think it's opt in)

[jmathai]

That doesn't mean they don't back it up if you don't select it in the settings.

[bradbatt]

I don’t think it’s out of bounds at all to assume that these companies would keep as much data as possible—including your messages.

[parasubvert]

Using an online service means you're participating in the current market system. Short of a popular global scale non-profit that wouldn't be up for sale, I'm not sure there is a solution to the problem of "how do I get warned if someone buys my favourite service". It's generally not a problem for most -- you put your data up, you took the risk, and most are just fine with giving up their privacy for convenience (I know I am).

Beyond privacy legislation (unlikely and probably draconian), there is only one solution to the problem that I see: help build the next generation of open web protocols so people can host their own private services and talk to one another without anyone having your data.

This would be the most private/open/free way to go, though the problem with that is there's basically no money in it yet. And no one has figured out how to make it a compelling user experience.

[jancborchardt]

A service using open source software is a pretty good indicator that they will not sell out. Or even if they do, you will still be able to continue to use it by self-hosting or using a different provider.

[loceng]

In Europe I could see this type of privacy legislation passing, though not so much in North America.