Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion.

From	"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.mobile.android
Subject	Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion.
Date	2025-06-18 14:19 +0200
Message-ID	<3fnailx8ol.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> (permalink)
References	(5 earlier) <102kjqs$22q4$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <8a71ilxjqj.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <86ikkxncea.fsf@example.com> <9km6ilxkam.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <86ldpp5nz6.fsf@example.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2025-06-18 12:43, Richmond wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
> 
>> On 2025-06-15 01:15, Richmond wrote:
>>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-06-14 21:50, Marion wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 19:57:41 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sorry to say that about everybody in Spain uses WhatsApp, even
>>>>>> businesses. Like the Bank. It is what it is.  >> Please ignore
>>>>>> Joerg. He feels compelled to ROTFWL on every thread.  >> He has
>>>>>> nothing to add. He's a worthless despicable human being.  >>
>>>>>> Now... as for your point - I agree with you since I agree with >>
>>>>>> anyone who >> makes a sensible logical statement.  >> Even I use
>>>>>> WhatsApp. And I care about privacy.  >> So I'm happy you (and
>>>>>> Richmond) brought this up.  >> I don't understand the
>>>>>> implications, but I can tell others that I >> use >> WhatsApp for
>>>>>> two sensible reasons, one of which is that it's what all my >>
>>>>>> relatives use on their mobile phones in Germany. So it's what
>>>>>> works since >> calling them would cost me an arm and a leg with
>>>>>> international prices.  >> The other reason is the parents of both
>>>>>> my great grandchildren use >> Apple >> devices, so everything is
>>>>>> blurry without using something like WhatsApp.  >> Sure, another
>>>>>> messenger would work, but so does WhatsApp.  >> Caveat in the sig.
>>>>
>>>> That WhatsApp has been affected by this security leak is still
>>>> unclear. The author of the article I posted doesn't know. Facebook
>>>> and Instagram yes, certainly. But WhatsApp promises encrypted
>>>> communications are kept private, end to end encryption. Listening to
>>>> them would be a major breach of trust (except with a court
>>>> order). This is not the same with Facebook, which is intended to
>>>> publish things.  >> The point is, whatsapp is closed source, it
>>>> could be doing other >> things >> beside sending your messages. It
>>>> could be snooping on other things and >> sending that data
>>>> elsewhere. Meta has now demonstrated it doesn't worry >> too much
>>>> about the law. Do you want that software on your phone? or are >>
>>>> you going to wait for the next thing to be discovered?
>>
>> I really do not have a choice in this.
>>
>> I know that it doesn't read our messages, and that is good enough. It
>> will have to do.
> 
> I am going to complain to the Information Commissioner's Office. But it
> is a long process. I don't have any of the apps installed, but I did
> once have a phone with facebook pre-installed, and this illegal activity
> has been going on since 2017 according to the reports.

Well, I don't have Facebook nor Instagram installed. One of my phones 
had it preinstalled, but I removed or blocked it at the time.

In the case of WhatsApp, I really don't have a choice, and there is yet 
no data on whether it is affected by this "issue".



-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

Back to comp.mobile.android | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

“Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-13 20:47 +0200
  Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-06-13 20:34 +0100
    Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-13 23:07 +0200
      Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-13 23:11 +0200
  Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-06-14 01:03 -0500
    Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-14 14:59 +0200
      Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-06-14 09:08 -0500
        Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-06-14 16:28 +0200
          Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-06-14 16:14 +0100
            Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-06-14 17:01 +0100
              Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-06-14 19:35 +0200
            Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-06-14 19:29 +0200
            Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-06-15 00:34 +0200
        Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-14 19:55 +0200
          Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-06-14 22:28 +0200
            Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-14 23:41 +0200
      Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-06-14 16:27 +0200
        Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-14 19:57 +0200
          Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-06-14 19:50 +0000
            Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-14 23:48 +0200
              Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-06-15 00:15 +0100
                Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Bob Henson <bob.henson@outlook.com> - 2025-06-15 09:05 +0100
                Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-17 01:40 +0200
                Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-06-18 11:43 +0100
                Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-18 14:19 +0200
                Re: ?Localhost tracking? explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-06-22 10:15 +0000
                Re: ?Localhost tracking? explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-22 13:30 +0200
                Re: ?Localhost tracking? explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-06-22 19:20 +0000
                Re: ?Localhost tracking? explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-22 21:40 +0200
                Re: ?Localhost tracking? explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-06-22 23:17 +0100
              Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-06-15 03:42 +0000
                Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-17 02:00 +0200
            Re: ⤽Localhost trackingâ€? explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Joerg Walther <joerg.walther@magenta.de> - 2025-06-15 11:45 +0200
          Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-06-14 20:51 +0100
            Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-06-14 22:34 +0200
              Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-06-14 21:45 +0100
            Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-06-15 03:46 +0000
              Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-06-15 09:49 +0100
          Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-06-14 22:29 +0200
            Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-14 23:43 +0200
              Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-06-15 07:10 +0200
                Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-06-17 01:51 +0200
    Re: “Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-06-15 00:32 +0200

csiph-web