{"id":194443,"date":"2021-09-13T12:00:52","date_gmt":"2021-09-13T11:00:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=194443"},"modified":"2021-09-08T04:59:27","modified_gmt":"2021-09-08T03:59:27","slug":"how-facebook-undermines-privacy-protections-for-its-2-billion-whatsapp-users","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2021\/09\/how-facebook-undermines-privacy-protections-for-its-2-billion-whatsapp-users\/","title":{"rendered":"How Facebook Undermines Privacy Protections for Its 2 Billion WhatsApp Users"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

WhatsApp assures users that no one can see their messages \u2014 but the company has an extensive monitoring operation and regularly shares personal information with prosecutors.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Nicolas Ortega for ProPublica<\/p><\/div>\n

7 Sep 2021 – <\/em>When Mark Zuckerberg unveiled a new \u201cprivacy-focused vision\u201d for Facebook in March 2019, he cited the company\u2019s global messaging service, WhatsApp, as a model. Acknowledging that \u201cwe don\u2019t currently have a strong reputation for building privacy protective services,\u201d the Facebook CEO wrote<\/a> that \u201cI believe the future of communication will increasingly shift to private, encrypted services where people can be confident what they say to each other stays secure and their messages and content won\u2019t stick around forever. This is the future I hope we will help bring about. We plan to build this the way we\u2019ve developed WhatsApp.\u201d<\/p>\n

Zuckerberg\u2019s vision centered on WhatsApp\u2019s signature feature, which he said the company was planning to <\/a>apply<\/a> to Instagram<\/a> and Facebook Messenger<\/a>: end-to-end encryption, which converts all messages into an unreadable format that is only unlocked when they reach their intended destinations. WhatsApp messages are so secure, he said, that nobody else \u2014 not even the company \u2014 can read a word. As Zuckerberg had put it earlier, in testimony to the U.S. Senate in 2018, \u201cWe don\u2019t see any of the content in WhatsApp.\u201d<\/p>\n

WhatsApp emphasizes this point so consistently that a flag with a similar assurance automatically appears on-screen before users send messages: \u201cNo one outside of this chat, not even WhatsApp, can read or listen to them.\u201d<\/p>\n

Those assurances are not true. WhatsApp has more than 1,000 contract workers filling floors of office buildings in Austin, Texas, Dublin and Singapore, where they examine millions of pieces of users\u2019 content. Seated at computers in pods organized by work assignments, these hourly workers use special Facebook software to sift through streams of private messages, images and videos that have been reported by WhatsApp users as improper and then screened by the company\u2019s artificial intelligence systems. These contractors pass judgment on whatever flashes on their screen \u2014 claims of everything from fraud or spam to child porn and potential terrorist plotting \u2014 typically in less than a minute.<\/p>\n

Policing users while assuring them that their privacy is sacrosanct makes for an awkward mission at WhatsApp. A 49-slide internal company marketing presentation from December, obtained by ProPublica, emphasizes the \u201cfierce\u201d promotion of WhatsApp\u2019s \u201cprivacy narrative.\u201d It compares its \u201cbrand character\u201d to \u201cthe Immigrant Mother\u201d and displays a photo of Malala \u200b\u200bYousafzai, who survived a shooting by the Taliban and became a Nobel Peace Prize winner, in a slide titled \u201cBrand tone parameters.\u201d The presentation does not mention the company\u2019s content moderation efforts.<\/p>\n

WhatsApp\u2019s director of communications, Carl Woog, acknowledged that teams of contractors in Austin and elsewhere review WhatsApp messages to identify and remove \u201cthe worst\u201d abusers. But Woog told ProPublica that the company does not consider this work to be content moderation, saying: \u201cWe actually don\u2019t typically use the term for WhatsApp.\u201d The company declined to make executives available for interviews for this article, but responded to questions with written comments. \u201cWhatsApp is a lifeline for millions of people around the world,\u201d the company said. \u201cThe decisions we make around how we build our app are focused around the privacy of our users, maintaining a high degree of reliability and preventing abuse.\u201d<\/p>\n

WhatsApp\u2019s denial that it moderates content is noticeably different from what Facebook Inc. says about WhatsApp\u2019s corporate siblings, Instagram and Facebook. The company has said that some 15,000 moderators examine content on Facebook and Instagram, neither of which is encrypted. It releases quarterly transparency reports<\/a> that detail how many accounts Facebook and Instagram have \u201cactioned\u201d for various categories of abusive content. There is no such report for WhatsApp.<\/p>\n

Deploying an army of content reviewers is just one of the ways that Facebook Inc. has compromised the privacy of WhatsApp users. Together, the company\u2019s actions have left WhatsApp \u2014 the largest messaging app in the world, with two billion users \u2014 far less private than its users likely understand or expect. A ProPublica investigation, drawing on data, documents and dozens of interviews with current and former employees and contractors, reveals how, since purchasing WhatsApp in 2014, Facebook has quietly undermined its sweeping security assurances in multiple ways. (Two<\/a> articles<\/a> this summer noted the existence of WhatsApp\u2019s moderators but focused on their working conditions and pay rather than their effect on users\u2019 privacy. This article is the first to reveal the details and extent of the company\u2019s ability to scrutinize messages and user data \u2014 and to examine what the company does with that information.)<\/p>\n

Many of the assertions by content moderators working for WhatsApp are echoed by a confidential whistleblower complaint filed last year with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint, which ProPublica obtained, details WhatsApp\u2019s extensive use of outside contractors, artificial intelligence systems and account information to examine user messages, images and videos. It alleges that the company\u2019s claims of protecting users\u2019 privacy are false. \u201cWe haven\u2019t seen this complaint,\u201d the company spokesperson said. The SEC has taken no public action on it; an agency spokesperson declined to comment.<\/p>\n

Facebook Inc. has also downplayed how much data it collects from WhatsApp users, what it does with it and how much it shares with law enforcement authorities. For example, WhatsApp shares metadata, unencrypted records that can reveal a lot about a user\u2019s activity, with law enforcement agencies such as the Department of Justice. Some rivals, such as Signal, intentionally gather much less metadata to avoid incursions on its users\u2019 privacy, and thus share far less with law enforcement. (\u201cWhatsApp responds to valid legal requests,\u201d the company spokesperson said, \u201cincluding orders that require us to provide on a real-time going forward basis who a specific person is messaging.\u201d)<\/p>\n

WhatsApp user data, ProPublica has learned, helped prosecutors build a high-profile case against a Treasury Department employee who leaked confidential documents to BuzzFeed News that exposed how dirty money flows through U.S. banks.<\/p>\n

Like other social media and communications platforms, WhatsApp is caught between users who expect privacy and law enforcement entities that effectively demand the opposite: that WhatsApp turn over information that will help combat crime and online abuse. WhatsApp has responded to this dilemma by asserting that it\u2019s no dilemma at all. \u201cI think we absolutely can have security and safety for people through end-to-end encryption and work with law enforcement to solve crimes,\u201d said Will Cathcart, whose title is Head of WhatsApp, in a YouTube interview<\/a> with an Australian think tank in July.<\/p>\n

The tension between privacy and disseminating information to law enforcement is exacerbated by a second pressure: Facebook\u2019s need to make money from WhatsApp. Since paying $22 billion to buy WhatsApp in 2014, Facebook has been trying to figure out how to generate profits from a service that doesn\u2019t charge its users a penny.<\/p>\n

That conundrum has periodically led to moves that anger users, regulators or both. The goal of monetizing the app was part of the company\u2019s 2016 decision to start sharing WhatsApp user data with Facebook, something the company had told European Union regulators was technologically impossible. The same impulse spurred a controversial plan, abandoned in late 2019, to sell advertising on WhatsApp. And the profit-seeking mandate was behind another botched initiative in January: the introduction of a new privacy policy for user interactions with businesses on WhatsApp, allowing businesses to use customer data in new ways. That announcement triggered a user exodus to competing apps.<\/p>\n

WhatsApp\u2019s increasingly aggressive business plan is focused on charging companies for an array of services \u2014 letting users make payments via WhatsApp and managing customer service chats \u2014 that offer convenience but fewer privacy protections. The result is a confusing two-tiered privacy system within the same app where the protections of end-to-end encryption are further eroded when WhatsApp users employ the service to communicate with businesses.<\/p>\n

The company\u2019s December marketing presentation captures WhatsApp\u2019s diverging imperatives. It states that \u201cprivacy will remain important.\u201d But it also conveys what seems to be a more urgent mission: the need to \u201copen the aperture of the brand to encompass our future business objectives.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

I. \u201cContent Moderation Associates\u201d<\/h3>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In many ways, the experience of being a content moderator for WhatsApp in Austin is identical to being a moderator for Facebook or Instagram, according to interviews with 29 current and former moderators. Mostly in their 20s and 30s, many with past experience as store clerks, grocery checkers and baristas, the moderators are hired and employed by Accenture, a huge corporate contractor that works for Facebook and other Fortune 500 behemoths.<\/p>\n

The job listings advertise \u201cContent Review\u201d positions and make no mention of Facebook or WhatsApp. Employment documents list the workers\u2019 initial title as \u201ccontent moderation associate.\u201d Pay starts around $16.50 an hour. Moderators are instructed to tell anyone who asks that they work for Accenture, and are required to sign sweeping non-disclosure agreements. Citing the NDAs, almost all the current and former moderators interviewed by ProPublica insisted on anonymity. (An Accenture spokesperson declined comment, referring all questions about content moderation to WhatsApp.)<\/p>\n

When the WhatsApp team was assembled in Austin in 2019, Facebook moderators already occupied the fourth floor of an office tower on Sixth Street, adjacent to the city\u2019s famous bar-and-music scene. The WhatsApp team was installed on the floor above, with new glass-enclosed work pods and nicer bathrooms that sparked a tinge of envy in a few members of the Facebook team. Most of the WhatsApp team scattered to work from home during the pandemic. Whether in the office or at home, they spend their days in front of screens, using a Facebook software tool to examine a stream of \u201ctickets,\u201d organized by subject into \u201creactive\u201d and \u201cproactive\u201d queues.<\/p>\n

Collectively, the workers scrutinize millions of pieces of WhatsApp content each week. Each reviewer handles upwards of 600 tickets a day, which gives them less than a minute per ticket. WhatsApp declined to reveal how many contract workers are employed for content review, but a partial staffing list reviewed by ProPublica suggests that, at Accenture alone, it\u2019s more than 1,000. WhatsApp moderators, like their Facebook and Instagram counterparts, are expected to meet performance metrics for speed and accuracy, which are audited by Accenture.<\/p>\n

Their jobs differ in other ways. Because WhatsApp\u2019s content is encrypted, artificial intelligence systems can\u2019t automatically scan all chats, images and videos, as they do on Facebook and Instagram. Instead, WhatsApp reviewers gain access to private content when users hit the \u201creport\u201d button on the app, identifying a message as allegedly violating the platform\u2019s terms of service. This forwards five messages \u2014 the allegedly offending one along with the four previous ones in the exchange, including any images or videos \u2014 to WhatsApp in unscrambled form, according to former WhatsApp engineers and moderators. Automated systems then feed these tickets into \u201creactive\u201d queues for contract workers to assess.<\/p>\n

Artificial intelligence initiates a second set of queues \u2014 so-called proactive ones \u2014 by scanning unencrypted data that WhatsApp collects about its users and comparing it against suspicious account information and messaging patterns (a new account rapidly sending out a high volume of chats is evidence of spam<\/a>), as well as terms and images that have previously been deemed abusive. The unencrypted data available for scrutiny is extensive. It includes the names and profile images of a user\u2019s WhatsApp groups as well as their phone number, profile photo, status message, phone battery level, language and time zone, unique mobile phone ID and IP address, wireless signal strength and phone operating system, as a list of their electronic devices, any related Facebook and Instagram accounts, the last time they used the app and any previous history of violations.<\/p>\n

The WhatsApp reviewers have three choices when presented with a ticket for either type of queue: Do nothing, place the user on \u201cwatch\u201d for further scrutiny, or ban the account. (Facebook and Instagram content moderators have more options, including removing individual postings. It\u2019s that distinction \u2014 the fact that WhatsApp reviewers can\u2019t delete individual items \u2014 that the company cites as its basis for asserting that WhatsApp reviewers are not \u201ccontent moderators.\u201d)<\/p>\n

WhatsApp moderators must make subjective, sensitive and subtle judgments, interviews and documents examined by ProPublica show. They examine a wide range of categories, including \u201cSpam Report\u201d, \u201cCivic Bad Actor\u201d (political hate speech and disinformation), \u201cTerrorism Global Credible Threat\u201d, \u201cCEI\u201d (child exploitative imagery) and \u201cCP\u201d (child pornography). Another set of categories addresses the messaging and conduct of millions of small and large businesses that use WhatsApp to chat with customers and sell their wares. These queues have such titles as \u201cbusiness impersonation prevalence,\u201d \u201ccommerce policy probable violators\u201d and \u201cbusiness verification.\u201d<\/p>\n

Moderators say the guidance they get from WhatsApp and Accenture relies on standards that can be simultaneously arcane and disturbingly graphic. Decisions about abusive sexual imagery, for example, can rest on an assessment of whether a naked child in an image appears adolescent or prepubescent, based on comparison of hip bones and pubic hair to a medical index chart. One reviewer recalled a grainy video in a political-speech queue that depicted a machete-wielding man holding up what appeared to be a severed head: \u201cWe had to watch and say, \u2018Is this a real dead body or a fake dead body?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

In late 2020, moderators were informed of a new queue for alleged \u201csextortion.\u201d It was defined in an explanatory memo as \u201ca form of sexual exploitation where people are blackmailed with a nude image of themselves which have been shared by them or someone else on the Internet.\u201d The memo said workers would review messages reported by users that \u201cinclude predefined keywords typically used in sextortion\/blackmail messages.\u201d<\/p>\n

WhatsApp\u2019s review system is hampered by impediments, including buggy language translation. The service has users in 180 countries, with the vast majority located outside the U.S. Even though Accenture hires workers who speak a variety of languages, for messages in some languages there\u2019s often no native speaker on site to assess abuse complaints. That means using Facebook\u2019s language-translation tool, which reviewers said could be so inaccurate that it sometimes labeled messages in Arabic as being in Spanish. The tool also offered little guidance on local slang, political context or sexual innuendo. \u201cIn the three years I\u2019ve been there,\u201d one moderator said, \u201cit\u2019s always been horrible.\u201d<\/p>\n

The process can be rife with errors and misunderstandings. Companies have been flagged for offering weapons for sale when they\u2019re selling straight shaving razors. Bras can be sold, but if the marketing language registers as \u201cadult,\u201d the seller can be labeled a forbidden \u201csexually oriented business.\u201d And a flawed translation tool set off an alarm when it detected kids for sale and slaughter, which, upon closer scrutiny, turned out to involve young goats intended to be cooked and eaten in halal meals.<\/p>\n

The system is also undercut by the human failings of the people who instigate reports. Complaints are frequently filed to punish, harass or prank someone, according to moderators. In messages from Brazil and Mexico, one moderator explained, \u201cwe had a couple of months where AI was banning groups left and right because people were messing with their friends by changing their group names\u201d and then reporting them. \u201cAt the worst of it, we were probably getting tens of thousands of those. They figured out some words the algorithm did not like.\u201d<\/p>\n

Other reports fail to meet WhatsApp standards for an account ban. \u201cMost of it is not violating,\u201d one of the moderators said. \u201cIt\u2019s content that is already on the internet, and it\u2019s just people trying to mess with users.\u201d Still, each case can reveal up to five unencrypted messages, which are then examined by moderators.<\/p>\n

The judgment of WhatsApp\u2019s AI is less than perfect, moderators say. \u201cThere were a lot of innocent photos on there that were not allowed to be on there,\u201d said Carlos Sauceda, who left Accenture last year after nine months. \u201cIt might have been a photo of a child taking a bath, and there was nothing wrong with it.\u201d As another WhatsApp moderator put it, \u201cA lot of the time, the artificial intelligence is not that intelligent.\u201d<\/p>\n

Facebook\u2019s written guidance to WhatsApp moderators acknowledges many problems, noting \u201cwe have made mistakes and our policies have been weaponized by bad actors to get good actors banned. When users write inquiries pertaining to abusive matters like these, it is up to WhatsApp to respond and act (if necessary) accordingly in a timely and pleasant manner.\u201d Of course, if a user appeals a ban that was prompted by a user report, according to one moderator, it entails having a second moderator examine the user\u2019s content.<\/p>\n

\n

II. \u201cIndustry Leaders\u201d in Detecting Bad Behavior<\/h3>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In public statements and on the company\u2019s websites, Facebook Inc. is noticeably vague about WhatsApp\u2019s monitoring process. The company does not provide a regular accounting of how WhatsApp polices the platform. WhatsApp\u2019s FAQ page and online complaint form note that it will receive \u201cthe most recent messages\u201d from a user who has been flagged. They do not, however, disclose how many unencrypted messages are revealed when a report is filed, or that those messages are examined by outside contractors. (WhatsApp told ProPublica it limits that disclosure to keep violators from \u201cgaming\u201d the system.)<\/p>\n

By contrast, both Facebook<\/a> and Instagram post lengthy \u201cCommunity Standards\u201d documents detailing the criteria its moderators use to police content, along with articles and videos<\/a> about \u201cthe unrecognized heroes who keep Facebook safe\u201d and announcements<\/a> on new content-review sites. Facebook\u2019s transparency reports detail how many pieces of content are \u201cactioned\u201d for each type of violation. WhatsApp is not included in this report.<\/p>\n

When dealing with legislators, Facebook Inc. officials also offer few details \u2014 but are eager to assure them that they don\u2019t let encryption stand in the way of protecting users from images of child sexual abuse and exploitation. For example, when members of the Senate Judiciary Committee grilled Facebook about the impact of encrypting its platforms, the company, in written follow-up questions in Jan. 2020, cited WhatsApp in boasting that it would remain responsive to law enforcement. \u201cEven within an encrypted system,\u201d one response noted, \u201cwe will still be able to respond to lawful requests for metadata, including potentially critical location or account information\u2026 We already have an encrypted messaging service, WhatsApp, that \u2014 in contrast to some other encrypted services \u2014 provides a simple way for people to report abuse or safety concerns.\u201d<\/p>\n

Sure enough, WhatsApp reported 400,000 instances of possible child-exploitation imagery to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in 2020, according to its head, Cathcart. That was ten times as many as in 2019. \u201cWe are by far the industry leaders in finding and detecting that behavior in an end-to-end encrypted service,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

During his YouTube interview with the Australian think tank, Cathcart also described WhatsApp\u2019s reliance on user reporting and its AI systems\u2019 ability to examine account information that isn\u2019t subject to encryption. Asked how many staffers WhatsApp employed to investigate abuse complaints from an app with more than two billion users, Cathcart didn\u2019t mention content moderators or their access to encrypted content. \u201cThere\u2019s a lot of people across Facebook who help with WhatsApp,\u201d he explained. \u201cIf you look at people who work full time on WhatsApp, it\u2019s above a thousand. I won\u2019t get into the full breakdown of customer service, user reports, engineering, etc. But it\u2019s a lot of that.\u201d<\/p>\n

In written responses for this article, the company spokesperson said: \u201cWe build WhatsApp in a manner that limits the data we collect while providing us tools to prevent spam, investigate threats, and ban those engaged in abuse, including based on user reports we receive. This work takes extraordinary effort from security experts and a valued trust and safety team that works tirelessly to help provide the world with private communication.\u201d The spokesperson noted that WhatsApp has released new privacy features, including \u201cmore controls about how people\u2019s messages can disappear\u201d or be viewed only once. He added, \u201cBased on the feedback we\u2019ve received from users, we\u2019re confident people understand when they make reports to WhatsApp we receive the content they send us.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

III. \u201cDeceiving Users\u201d about Personal Privacy<\/h3>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Since the moment Facebook announced plans to buy WhatsApp in 2014, observers wondered how the service, known for its fervent commitment to privacy, would fare inside a corporation known for the opposite. Zuckerberg had become one of the wealthiest people on the planet by using a \u201csurveillance capitalism\u201d approach: collecting and exploiting reams of user data to sell targeted digital ads. Facebook\u2019s relentless pursuit of growth and profits has generated a series of privacy scandals in which it was accused of deceiving customers and regulators.<\/p>\n

By contrast, WhatsApp knew little about its users apart from their phone numbers and shared none of that information with third parties. WhatsApp ran no ads, and its co-founders, Jan Koum and Brian Acton, both former Yahoo engineers, were hostile to them. \u201cAt every company that sells ads,\u201d they wrote<\/a> in 2012, \u201ca significant portion of their engineering team spends their day tuning data mining, writing better code to collect all your personal data, upgrading the servers that hold all the data and making sure it\u2019s all being logged and collated and sliced and packed and shipped out,\u201d adding: \u201cRemember, when advertising is involved you the user are the product.\u201d At WhatsApp, they noted, \u201cyour data isn\u2019t even in the picture. We are simply not interested in any of it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Zuckerberg publicly vowed in a 2014 keynote speech that he would keep WhatsApp \u201cexactly the same.\u201d He declared, \u201cWe are absolutely not going to change plans around WhatsApp and the way it uses user data. WhatsApp is going to operate completely autonomously.\u201d<\/p>\n

In April 2016, WhatsApp completed its long-planned adoption of end-to-end encryption, which helped establish the app as a prized communications platform in 180 countries, including many where text messages and phone calls are cost-prohibitive. International dissidents, whistleblowers and journalists also turned to WhatsApp to escape government eavesdropping.<\/p>\n

Four months later, however, WhatsApp disclosed it would begin sharing user data with Facebook \u2014 precisely what Zuckerberg had said would not happen \u2014 a move that cleared the way for an array of future revenue-generating plans. The new WhatsApp terms of service said the app would share information such as users\u2019 phone numbers, profile photos, status messages and IP addresses for the purposes of ad targeting, fighting spam and abuse and gathering metrics. \u201cBy connecting your phone number with Facebook\u2019s systems,\u201d WhatsApp explained, \u201cFacebook can offer better friend suggestions and show you more relevant ads if you have an account with them.\u201d<\/p>\n

Such actions were increasingly bringing Facebook into the crosshairs of regulators. In May 2017, European Union antitrust regulators fined the company<\/a> 110 million euros (about $122 million) for falsely claiming three years earlier that it would be impossible to link the user information between WhatsApp and the Facebook family of apps. The EU concluded that Facebook had \u201cintentionally or negligently\u201d deceived regulators. Facebook insisted its false statements in 2014 were not intentional, but didn\u2019t contest the fine.<\/p>\n

By the spring of 2018, the WhatsApp co-founders, now both billionaires, were gone. Acton, in what he later described as an act of \u201cpenance\u201d for the \u201ccrime\u201d of selling WhatsApp to Facebook, gave $50 million to a foundation backing Signal, a free encrypted messaging app that would emerge as a WhatsApp rival. (Acton\u2019s donor-advised fund has also given money to ProPublica.)<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, Facebook was under fire for its security and privacy failures as never before. The pressure culminated in a landmark $5 billion fine<\/a> by the Federal Trade Commission in July 2019 for violating a previous agreement to protect user privacy. The fine was almost 20 times greater than any previous privacy-related penalty, according to the FTC, and Facebook\u2019s transgressions included \u201cdeceiving users about their ability to control the privacy of their personal information.\u201d<\/p>\n

The FTC announced that it was ordering Facebook to take steps to protect privacy going forward, including for WhatsApp users: \u201cAs part of Facebook\u2019s order-mandated privacy program, which covers WhatsApp and Instagram, Facebook must conduct a privacy review of every new or modified product, service, or practice before it is implemented, and document its decisions about user privacy.\u201d Compliance officers would be required to generate a \u201cquarterly privacy review report\u201d and share it with the company and, upon request, the FTC.<\/p>\n

Facebook agreed to the FTC\u2019s fine and order. Indeed, the negotiations for that agreement were the backdrop, just four months before that, for Zuckerberg\u2019s announcement of his new commitment to privacy.<\/p>\n

By that point, WhatsApp had begun using Accenture and other outside contractors to hire hundreds of content reviewers. But the company was eager not to step on its larger privacy message \u2014 or spook its global user base. It said nothing publicly about its hiring of contractors to review content.<\/p>\n

\n

IV. \u201cWe Kill People Based on Metadata\u201d<\/h3>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Even as Zuckerberg was touting Facebook Inc.\u2019s new commitment to privacy in 2019, he didn\u2019t mention that his company was apparently sharing more of its WhatsApp users\u2019 metadata than ever with the parent company \u2014 and with law enforcement.<\/p>\n

To the lay ear, the term \u201cmetadata\u201d can sound abstract, a word that evokes the intersection of literary criticism and statistics. To use an old, pre-digital analogy, metadata is the equivalent of what\u2019s written on the outside of an envelope \u2014 the names and addresses of the sender and recipient and the postmark reflecting where and when it was mailed \u2014 while the \u201ccontent\u201d is what\u2019s written on the letter sealed inside the envelope. So it is with WhatsApp messages: The content is protected, but the envelope reveals a multitude of telling details (as noted: time stamps, phone numbers and much more).<\/p>\n

Those in the information and intelligence fields understand how crucial this information can be. It was metadata, after all, that the National Security Agency was gathering about millions of Americans not suspected of a crime, prompting a global outcry when it was exposed in 2013 by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. \u201cMetadata absolutely tells you everything about somebody\u2019s life,\u201d former NSA general counsel Stewart Baker once said. \u201cIf you have enough metadata, you don\u2019t really need content.\u201d In a symposium at Johns Hopkins University in 2014, Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of both the CIA and NSA, went even further<\/a>: \u201cWe kill people based on metadata.\u201d<\/p>\n

U.S. law enforcement has used WhatsApp metadata to help put people in jail. ProPublica found more than a dozen instances in which the Justice Department sought court orders for the platform\u2019s metadata since 2017. These represent a fraction of overall requests, known as pen register orders (a phrase borrowed from the technology used to track numbers dialed by landline telephones), as many more are kept from public view by court order. U.S. government requests for data on outgoing and incoming messages from all Facebook platforms increased by 276% from the first half of 2017 to the second half of 2020, according to Facebook Inc. statistics<\/a> (which don\u2019t break out the numbers by platform). The company\u2019s rate of handing over at least some data in response to such requests has risen from 84% to 95% during that period.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not clear exactly what government investigators have been able to gather from WhatsApp, as the results of those orders, too, are often kept from public view. Internally, WhatsApp calls such requests for information about users \u201cprospective message pairs,\u201d or PMPs. These provide data on a user\u2019s messaging patterns in response to requests from U.S. law enforcement agencies, as well as those in at least three other countries \u2014 the United Kingdom, Brazil and India \u2014 according to a person familiar with the matter who shared this information on condition of anonymity. Law enforcement requests from other countries might only receive basic subscriber profile information.<\/p>\n

WhatsApp metadata was pivotal in the arrest and conviction of Natalie \u201cMay\u201d Edwards, a former Treasury Department official with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, for leaking confidential banking reports about suspicious transactions to BuzzFeed News. The FBI\u2019s criminal complaint detailed hundreds of messages between Edwards and a BuzzFeed reporter using an \u201cencrypted application,\u201d which interviews and court records confirmed was WhatsApp. \u201cOn or about August 1, 2018, within approximately six hours of the Edwards pen becoming operative \u2014 and the day after the July 2018 Buzzfeed article<\/a> was published \u2014 the Edwards cellphone exchanged approximately 70 messages via the encrypted application with the Reporter-1 cellphone during an approximately 20-minute time span between 12:33 a.m. and 12:54 a.m.,\u201d FBI Special Agent Emily Eckstut wrote in her October 2018 complaint. Edwards and the reporter used WhatsApp because Edwards believed the platform to be secure, according to a person familiar with the matter.<\/p>\n

Edwards was sentenced on June 3 to six months in prison after pleading guilty to a conspiracy charge and reported to prison last week<\/a>. Edwards\u2019 attorney declined to comment, as did representatives from the FBI and the Justice Department.<\/p>\n

WhatsApp has for years<\/a> downplayed how much unencrypted information it shares with law enforcement, largely limiting mentions of the practice to boilerplate language buried deep in its terms of service. It does not routinely keep permanent logs of who users are communicating with and how often, but company officials confirmed they do turn on such tracking at their own discretion \u2014 even for internal Facebook leak investigations \u2014 or in response to law enforcement requests. The company declined to tell ProPublica how frequently it does so.<\/p>\n

The privacy page for WhatsApp assures users that they have total control over their own metadata. It says users can \u201cdecide if only contacts, everyone, or nobody can see your profile photo\u201d or when they last opened their status updates or when they last opened the app. Regardless of the settings a user chooses, WhatsApp collects and analyzes all of that data \u2014 a fact not mentioned anywhere on the page.<\/p>\n

\n

V. \u201cOpening the Aperture to Encompass Business Objectives\u201d<\/h3>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The conflict between privacy and security on encrypted platforms seems to be only intensifying. Law enforcement and child safety advocates have urged Zuckerberg to abandon his plan to encrypt all of Facebook\u2019s messaging platforms. In June 2020, three Republican senators introduced the \u201cLawful Access to Encrypted Data Act,\u201d which would require tech companies to assist in providing access to even encrypted content in response to law enforcement warrants. For its part, WhatsApp recently sued the Indian government to block its requirement that encrypted apps provide \u201ctraceability\u201d \u2014 a method to identify the sender of any message deemed relevant to law enforcement. WhatsApp has fought similar demands in other countries.<\/p>\n

Other encrypted platforms take a vastly different approach to monitoring their users than WhatsApp. Signal employs no content moderators, collects far less user and group data, allows no cloud backups and generally rejects the notion that it should be policing user activities. It submits no child exploitation reports to NCMEC.<\/p>\n

Apple has touted its commitment to privacy as a selling point. It has no \u201creport\u201d button on its iMessage system, and the company has made just a few hundred annual reports to NCMEC, all of them originating from scanning outgoing email, which is unencrypted.<\/p>\n

But Apple recently took a new tack, and appeared to stumble along the way. Amid intensifying pressure from Congress, in August the company announced a complex new system for identifying child-exploitative imagery on users\u2019 iCloud backups. Apple insisted the new system poses no threat to private content, but privacy advocates accused the company of creating a backdoor that potentially allows authoritarian governments to demand broader content searches, which could result in the targeting of dissidents, journalists or other critics of the state. On Sept. 3, Apple announced<\/a> it would delay implementation of the new system.<\/p>\n

Still, it\u2019s Facebook that seems to face the most constant skepticism among major tech platforms. It is using encryption to market itself as privacy-friendly, while saying little about the other ways it collects data, according to Lloyd Richardson, the director of IT at the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. \u201cThis whole idea that they\u2019re doing it for personal protection of people is completely ludicrous,\u201d Richardson said. \u201cYou\u2019re trusting an app owned and written by Facebook to do exactly what they\u2019re saying. Do you trust that entity to do that?\u201d (On Sept. 2, Irish authorities announced<\/a> that they are fining WhatsApp 225 million euros, about $267 million, for failing to properly disclose how the company shares user information with other Facebook platforms. WhatsApp is contesting the finding.)<\/p>\n

Facebook\u2019s emphasis on promoting WhatsApp as a paragon of privacy is evident in the December marketing document obtained by ProPublica. The \u201cBrand Foundations\u201d presentation says it was the product of a 21-member global team across all of Facebook, involving a half-dozen workshops, quantitative research, \u201cstakeholder interviews\u201d and \u201cendless brainstorms.\u201d Its aim: to offer \u201can emotional articulation\u201d of WhatsApp\u2019s benefits, \u201can inspirational toolkit that helps us tell our story,\u201d and a \u201cbrand purpose to champion the deep human connection that leads to progress.\u201d The marketing deck identifies a feeling of \u201ccloseness\u201d as WhatsApp\u2019s \u201cownable emotional territory,\u201d saying the app delivers \u201cthe closest thing to an in-person conversation.\u201d<\/p>\n

WhatsApp should portray itself as \u201ccourageous,\u201d according to another slide, because it\u2019s \u201ctaking a strong, public stance that is not financially motivated on things we care about,\u201d such as defending encryption and fighting misinformation. But the presentation also speaks of the need to \u201copen the aperture of the brand to encompass our future business objectives. While privacy will remain important, we must accommodate for future innovations.\u201d<\/p>\n

WhatsApp is now in the midst of a major drive to make money. It has experienced a rocky start, in part because of broad suspicions of how WhatsApp will balance privacy and profits. An announced plan to begin running ads inside the app didn\u2019t help; it was abandoned in late 2019, just days before it was set to launch. Early this January, WhatsApp unveiled a change in its privacy policy \u2014 accompanied by a one-month deadline to accept the policy or get cut off from the app. The move sparked a revolt, impelling tens of millions of users to flee<\/a> to rivals such as Signal and Telegram.<\/p>\n

The policy change focused on how messages and data would be handled when users communicate with a business in the ever-expanding array of WhatsApp Business offerings. Companies now could store their chats with users and use information about users for marketing purposes, including targeting them with ads on Facebook or Instagram.<\/p>\n

Elon Musk tweeted \u201cUse Signal,\u201d and WhatsApp users rebelled. Facebook delayed for three months the requirement for users to approve the policy update. In the meantime, it struggled to convince users that the change would have no effect on the privacy protections for their personal<\/em> communications, with a slightly modified version of its usual assurance: \u201cWhatsApp cannot see your personal messages or hear your calls and neither can Facebook.\u201d Just as when the company first bought WhatsApp years before, the message was the same: Trust us.<\/p>\n

_________________________________________________<\/p>\n

Peter Elkind is a reporter covering government and business. peter.elkind@propublica.org<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Jack Gillum is a reporter at <\/em>ProPublica based in Washington, D.C., covering technology and privacy. jack.gillum@propublica.org<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Craig Silverman is a Reporter at <\/em>ProPublica.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\n

ProPublica is an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. Our work focuses exclusively on truly important stories, stories with \u201cmoral force.\u201d We do this by producing journalism that shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them. Investigative journalism is at risk. Many news organizations have increasingly come to see it as a luxury<\/a>. Today\u2019s investigative reporters lack resources: Time and budget constraints are curbing the ability of journalists not specifically designated \u201cinvestigative\u201d to do this kind of reporting in addition to their regular beats.<\/em><\/p>\n

Additional reporting by Alex Mierjeski<\/a> and Doris Burke<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Go to Original – propublica.org<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

7 Sep 2021 – WhatsApp assures users that no one can see their messages \u2014 but the company has an extensive monitoring operation and regularly shares personal information with prosecutors.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":194444,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[62],"tags":[1007,1220,1277,1006,2661],"class_list":["post-194443","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-media","tag-facebook","tag-privacy","tag-privacy-rights","tag-social-media","tag-whatsapp"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194443","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=194443"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194443\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/194444"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=194443"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=194443"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=194443"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}