Back in April I wrote how my blogging had changed since I reduced my Facebook activity last fall. I needed to create more space again to think and write, and FB was eroding my capacity to do so. Since my break with FB I wrote more than since a long time, and the average weekly activity was higher than ever in the past 16 years. In april I wondered how that would keep up in the second quarter of this year so here are the numbers of the first half of 2018.

First, the number of postings was 203 this first half of 2018, or an average of 7 to 8 per week. Both as total number and as weekly average this is more than I have ever blogged since 2002 on even a yearly basis. (see the graphs in my previous posting Back to the Blog, the Numbers).

Mid April I added a stream of micro-postings to this blog, and that helps explain part of the large jump in number of postings in the first graph below. What microblogging helps do however is get the small bits, references and random thoughts out of my head, leaving more space to write posts with more content. I’ve written 84 ‘proper’ blog posts the last 6 months, of which 50 since adding the microblog mid April, so it has pushed up all my writing.


Blogposts 2018 per month. It shows July as week 26 ends July 1st, which had 2 postings


Blogposts 2018 per week, the micro blog started week 15

Let’s look at how that compares to previous months and years.


Number of posts per month since 2016. Leaving FB in October 2017 started a strong uptick.

I feel I have found back a writing rhythm. So tracking the number of postings moving forward is likely mostly of interest in terms of ‘proper’ postings and the topics covered, and less to see if I blog at all. My steps away from FB have paid off, and reconfiguring my information strategies for more quality is the next phase.

How many friends have you made on Facebook? asks William Hertling in his near future SF novel Kill Process. And answers ‘none’, in contrast to forums, blog conversations etc. Seems a pertinent observation.

Some links I thought worth reading the past few days

Some links I thought worth reading the past few days

The second founder, Jan Koum, of WhatsApp has left Facebook, apparently over differences in dealing with encryption and the sharing of data of WhatsApp. The other founder, Brian Acton, had already left Facebook last September, over similar issues. He donated $50 million to the non-profit Signal Foundation earlier this year, and stated he wanted to work on transparent, open-source development and uncompromising data protection. (Koum on the other hand said he was going to spend time on collecting Porsches….) Previously the European Union fined Facebook 110 million Euro for lying about matching up data of Whatsapp with Facebook profiles when Facebook acquired Whatsapp in 2014. Facebook at the time said it couldn’t match Whatsapp and Facebook accounts automatically, then 2 years later did precisely that, while the technology for it already existed in 2014 of which Facebook was aware. Facbeook says “errors made in its 2014 filings were not intentional” Another “we’re sorry, honestly” moment for Facebook in a 15 year long apology tour since even before its inception.

I have WhatsApp on my phone but never use it to initiate contact. Some in my network however don’t use any alternatives.

The gold standard for messaging apps is Signal by Open Whisper Systems. Other applications such as Whatsapp, FB Messenger or Skype have actually incorporated Signal’s encryption technology (it’s open after all), but in un-testable ways (they’re not open after all). Signal is available on your phone and as desktop app (paired with your phone). It does require you to disclose a phone number, which is a drawback. I prefer using Signal, but the uptake of Signal is slow in western countries.

Other possible apps using end-to-end encryption are:
Threema, a Switzerland based application, I also use but not with many contacts. Trust levels in the application are partly based on exchanging keys when meeting face to face, adding a non-tech layer. It also claims to not store metadata (anonymous use possible, no phone necessary, not logging who communicates with whom, contact lists and groups locally on your device etc). Yet, the app itself isn’t open for inspection.

Telegram (originating in Russia, but now banned for not handing over encryption keys to Russian authorities, and now also banned in Iran, where it has 40 million users, 25% of its global user population.) I don’t use Telegram, and don’t know many in my network who do.

Interestingly the rise in using encrypted messaging is very high in countries high on the corruption perception index. It also shows how slowly Signal is growing in other countries.

VPN tools will allow you to circumvent blocking of an app, by pretending to be in a different country. However VPN, which is a standard application in all businesses allowing remote access to employees, itself is banned in various countries (or only allowed from ‘approved’ VPN suppliers, basically meaning bans of a messaging app will still be enforced).

Want to message me? Use Signal. Use Threema if you don’t want to disclose a phone number.

Many tech companies are rushing to arrange compliance with GDPR, Europe’s new data protection regulations. What I have seen landing in my inbox thus far is not encouraging. Like with Facebook, other platforms clearly struggle, or hope to get away, with partially or completely ignoring the concepts of informed consent and unforced consent and proving consent. One would suspect the latter as Facebooks removal of 1.5 billion users from EU jurisdiction, is a clear step to reduce potential exposure.

Where consent by the data subject is the basis for data collection: Informed consent means consent needs to be explicitly given for each specific use of person related data, based on a for laymen clear explanation of the reason for collecting the data and how precisely it will be used.
Unforced means consent cannot be tied to core services of the controlling/processing company when that data isn’t necessary to perform a service. In other words “if you don’t like it, delete your account” is forced consent. Otherwise, the right to revoke one or several consents given becomes impossible.
Additionally, a company needs to be able to show that consent has been given, where consent is claimed as the basis for data collection.

Instead I got this email from Twitter earlier today:

“We encourage you to read both documents in full, and to contact us as described in our Privacy Policy if you have questions.”

and then

followed by

You can also choose to deactivate your Twitter account.

The first two bits mean consent is not informed and that it’s not even explicit consent, but merely assumed consent. The last bit means it is forced. On top of it Twitter will not be able to show content was given (as it is merely assumed from using their service). That’s not how this is meant to work. Non-compliant in other words. (IANAL though)