 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. Over the past few weeks, there's been a huge controversy after WhatsApp released updates to its privacy policy, which it mandated that users had to accept before February 8th to delete their accounts. Now this led to a huge amount of outrage. A lot of people ended up downloading and migrating to Signal, which is a secure app. There were a lot of discussions around it. WhatsApp and Facebook, which owns it, were a bit taken aback. They released a lot of clarificatory statements. And it looks like finally they had to step back a bit because now they've announced that this update has been postponed to May. Yesterday, we talked to NewsClick's Premier Prakash on this issue in terms of what this policy changes meant, what is the strategy of Facebook and WhatsApp, and what are its implications on users? Here's what he had to say. Well, one shift is that what it was sharing has become with Facebook has become more public because there was a slim window that it had given in 2016 for its users if they want to opt out of their data being shared with Facebook. WhatsApp users' data being shared with Facebook. Now that window really closed in 30 days, but there was hidden inside their 8,000 word privacy policy, a place where you could actually see what the privacy policy was, and if you decide you could opt out of it. Now that was again something which is so well hidden, which it always is this so-called document which asks you to read and say after reading, click yes. And the average time people spend on reading and clicking is eight to 10 seconds. So nobody really reads these long documents which they ask you to see and then click. So most of the people today really are already getting their data shared with Facebook. But this became public because Facebook made this much more clear or WhatsApp made this much more clear in what it told us that it wanted us to do, agree on whatever changing in terms of policy and taking this option out completely. So what hit people in the face is whatever are unaware of that Facebook was already sharing this data from roughly 2016 onwards. So this is something which was probably not known to most of Facebook users. And Brian Acton, one of the persons who had founded WhatsApp left and were joined Facebook, left Facebook on this issue in 2016. So he was very unhappy with the violation of the assurances which had been given in 2014 to WhatsApp users. So this sort of was in your face statement that we are going to do this and what we have said in the past about your privacy in 2014 that we will never share our data with Facebook, et cetera, et cetera. All of that is the hogwash. All of that goes under the window. The second part of this statement also asking us to, if you're a WhatsApp user to agree to was also sharing this data with other businesses which use WhatsApp for business. So there were two major issues over here. One is sharing with Facebook itself which was de facto what it was doing but it wasn't so obvious. And the second with other businesses these are the two issues. So the reaction on the backlash against WhatsApp and Facebook has been taking the users for a ride and that has really left a bad taste in the mouth for a lot of people and made people suspect Facebook and WhatsApp, of course which is a specific business that Facebook owns but it is not true to its promises and it has been playing with the privacy of its users without telling them. So it's really a breach of faith which has annoyed the Facebook users and some realization that the so-called privacy being in its DNA only held as far as the encryption of the message was concerned, the end to end encryption that WhatsApp didn't read your messages but beyond that everything was up for grabs and it was willing not only to give it to Facebook which is what it had promised it would not do. There's two databases Facebook and WhatsApp would not be merged and Facebook would not be able to use this data. So not only that assurance had been given up but also the fact it is now willing to share this information with other business users. So in fairness to Facebook what it was saying is that now onwards all your data is fair game to us. The only thing that is not going to be used is the content of your messages which in any case is not of great interest to Facebook and WhatsApp. When the metadata as it is called the other data, the location where you are who do you interact with? This is a much more valuable information and that was anyway up for grabs that were being used for Facebook for advertisements. And as you know that advertisement is the key revenue. In fact, I think more than 1995% of its revenue is from advertisements. So the more targeted or micro-targeted their ads are the better it is for them. They're able to extract a larger amount of money from the advertisers. So this is in nutshell, the unhappiness with Facebook and what it is doing. And of course Facebook has come out with ads which says very different things. But if you read between the lines none of the things they're saying controversy what I've just said. So that's the reality which is there. Absolutely. And probably in this context also wanted to ask you about the ads because India of course a huge market for WhatsApp about 400 million users. It's almost ubiquitous in life, in politics in every aspect of our day to day existence almost for many people in India. And WhatsApp and Facebook they've been releasing a series of ads basically drawing a kind of distinction like you just mentioned about privacy which according to them is defined in terms of your messages being private and apparently the new changes which are purely for the business side. So that's really the distinction they've been trying to convince users that this is not really about you. This is about a certain other class of users. So could you maybe delve into a bit more into this issue of really how just purely because your personal messages are not being read. Nonetheless, what is the implication? You know, the whole idea that because the content is not being read, your message is somehow safe completely from the state. That's really the premise of all of this. As you know, not really true. All you need to know is what is the group who are the members of the group. And that's also part of the metadata. And once a state knows that then it can requisition sees one phone in that group and all the information is all will be there in the phone which can be easily downloaded. Even if you delete it, it can be recovered from the phone. So this, as we know, this is what makes this talk about this information being secured a little problematic. It's naivety of the people if they believe that really anything done on Facebook or WhatsApp is going to be permanently safe for them. It's not. So if you want to use it, you do use it with knowing this. So that's fair to say that, yes, WhatsApp or Facebook has not betrayed their promise on discount. But the point is different. The point is that if you want to, if the state wants to know what you're doing, the metadata is as valuable to them as it is to Facebook and WhatsApp for business purposes. So the metadata is, as we know, the key issue in micro-targeting or targeting of consumers for advertising purposes. And the metadata's value is what has made this business so powerful. So this is trying to pull wool over our eyes to claim that, oh, you know, this is really very marginal things we are doing to improve your user experience. This is all for your benefit. We are doing this purely for the goodness of our heart that we want to have you feel much more comfortable on our platform. The reality is this is the lifeblood of their business. So that should be very clear. And one should therefore not be surprised that they do prevaricate on these issues. But that's not the only issue here. The second issue which I think is very important and this is the other part of the promise they have made that they will share this data on their platform if it is used for business, WhatsApp use for business purposes for say chatting to another business and they want to use WhatsApp for this purpose. This I presume was also the reason why it acquired WhatsApp, that they could extend it as a messaging platform or a chatting platform to finally business applications of the kind where the Chinese big data monopolies have done. So that was the model that they were trying. They haven't succeeded, but that's the model they have. And the one big platform that has tied up on this issue with WhatsApp is Reliance Geo. GeoMart has tied up with them. So presumably they will be using WhatsApp for their marketing outlets. So you have access to 400 million users using a platform people are familiar with already for merchandising purposes. And that also explains why Facebook took in Reliance, Reliance Geo, a $5.7 billion investment that was a chunk of investment they made in Reliance Geo. So that was the purpose. The second part and that third part of this actually though this is really a part of the business platforms itself is also that Facebook has got now a permission for its payment app. And that's the other part which is of the puzzle that therefore Facebook's use of WhatsApp or plans to use WhatsApp is for payment and for business. And they want to use WhatsApp for that and share this data with also their customers as well as the customer's data with Facebook. So this is the new avenue they want to carve out for themselves which is merchandising and payments. And if they can complete that using WhatsApp then WhatsApp becomes a platform which is going to integrate a whole bunch of services on top of it. And may after some time make money or credit cards relatively less useful because people will be using WhatsApp for payments like they do in China where they use really Alipay and I think WeChat for their payments. That's the most common payment mechanism people have. So that is the direction that Facebook wants to go and wants to use WhatsApp for that. And I think this particular move in terms of privacy which they have done which has really exposed their plans has I think cost them a credibility gap a serious credibility gap because Facebook has always made promises regarding privacy which it hasn't kept. And one of the major problems with Facebook is the fact of dilution of private systematic dilution of privacy from the beginning. Absolutely. Right. And finally in this context of course these developments coming globally at a interesting time. We know that in the United States there has been a massive antitrust case against Facebook. One of the demands that has come out in this process is that WhatsApp and Instagram for instance be divested from Facebook. Of course in previous instances we've had European authorities taking a look at it. We've had Australia from a different perspective take a look at action against Facebook not necessarily from a competitive perspective but even in India some calls have been made. So globally there is a lot of talk about the danger of the monopoly that Facebook presents and something like this might be perceived as even pushing action on those lines even before action at least discussion pressure on those lines even further. So do we see steps like this for instance strengthening the claim of say anti-monopoly cases? You know it's very interesting that you raised that because in the European Union as well as in the UK Facebook and WhatsApp data is not merged like it has been done in almost all other jurisdictions. So they have been able to protect themselves because of the privacy laws and because that was deemed to be a violation of privacy laws. Therefore in these two jurisdiction they don't access each other's data and Facebook has said that this change will not affect European users European Union users or the UK. So that is interesting to note that they themselves recognize there was a regulatory bar on these platforms of using or merging each other's data. In India when the payment gate payment permission was given by UPI or the National Payment Gateway whatever the regulatory body is this is also condition made that WhatsApp and Facebook's data should not be shared. Now they have not doesn't appear that they have observed this because from they have the only exception they have made was European Union and UK in their statements. So it does seem that this has been violated in India already and the proposed to violated even more by saying business data will be shared and obviously payment data is business data. So yes, I think that's a significant cause for worrying that the other regulatory boundaries be continuously weakened in different countries. The US case is very interesting because one of the common things now in both in antitrust interpretation of the US and the competition commissions that have been set up post Margaret Thatcher reforms which said monopoly per se is not bad. So if a company becomes a complete monopoly that's not bad. You have to show that by becoming a monopoly is harm the consumer. I think of the consumer was always interpreted as commercial harm or financial harm and the argument is well Facebook and WhatsApp is giving you free services. So where is the question of harm? Now, this is where the case that has been filed by the regulators in the US state as well as the central regulators that is an interesting case because it says the harm is weakening of privacy and they've got internal documents of Facebook, various things which came out also in the antitrust hearings in the US Congress. Those have actually now brought up that Facebook not only weakened its privacy but they discussed when they should weaken it and also when they should not. So this internal documents make clear Facebook was very aware that if they get a bad press they're going to have a problem and therefore they should be careful about when they should weaken privacy and it's very clear as and when they become more and more monopolistic meaning their competition disappears and Facebook by its own reckoning owns about more than 90% of the social media. I'm not counting Google as a platform for social media it's really a platform for other things. For social media it's really Facebook which dominates the international market and the US market with the exception of China and perhaps Russia it really dominates over the rest of the world. So this 1995% of the dominance of social media by Facebook makes it a real threat in terms of monopoly powers for the threat for the people. And I think that is the real that is the reason which is causing worry to Republicans to Democrats on both sides of the aim in the US Congress that this is something which is really a threat to our democracy. As you know Facebook is a threat to a democracy during any election whether it's India or the United States or during Brexit in the UK. So that power of Facebook that itself is a threat not the fact that how it is used whether it should put Trump on its platform ban him retain its videos or not retain it. Those are peripheral. The real issue is the kind of monopoly power it has and the ability to swing elections in any country by just selectively micro targeting set of users and the way they play the game with the advertisers as well as the political parties in power. Absolutely. Thank you so much Praveen for talking to us. That's all we have time for and I keep watching you sleep.