As an investigative journalist, Chloe worked hard to protect her anonymity. Yet, when her source used TrueCaller, things changed https://privacyinternational.org/case-study/2997/betrayed-app-she-had-never-heard-how-truecaller-endangering-journalists
@privacyint That's why one should never give data of other people to 3rd parties without those people explicitly giving consent.
I'd even go a step further, requiring TrueCaller to not only offer opt-out, but working based on opt-in: if a person does not confirm that message you proposed, that number should be dropped. Full stop. No further nagging messages; "hold" it for a week or two – if confirmed enter it to the database, otherwise delete it.
I wouldn't call this being betrayed by the app. Based on the linked article, I'd call it, "User blames app for not using it appropriately or securely."
@privacyint ... I agree about thoughts on TrueCaller and in particular on the opt-in, although this would probably jeopardize their business model. I also think that everybody should be much more paranoid; at the end of the day, the name/newspaper association has been put in the database by "Chloe" 's contact in the first place, so better avoid communications over the phone even in situations that seem "fine enough".
can't wait for the headline saying their database was compromised and all the 'private' registered contact data is leaked to the public.
I bet that the opt-outs are registered as plain text data too, rather than a one-way hash that is checked against. So, in order to not be registered, you'd still have to have your number registered...
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!