I think services reading your PMs is really creepy and should be weighted more in the judgement.
I agree, but the only way a service can guarantee they don’t do this is end-to-end encryption. But if a service promises in their terms not to read PMs, even unverifiably, that might be worth a dedicated good point – if any examples of this can be found ‘in the wild’.
I agree with @HACKER3000 , it’s an invasive method of data collection that should be showed more prominently in the reviews.
If they promise that, then it shouldn’t fall under that case: they’d had the technical means to read private messages, but would be legally prohibited to do it as they claim the contrary.
I don’t think this situation happens very often. Generally services only explicitely tell users they can read private messages if either they provide a way to make messages E2EE (like Telegram does) or they are required by law to inform about it because they collect and may use that data.
Since no other opinons have been expressed on this, Case 239: Private messages can be read is now a Blocker.
I’ll wait a couple days before closing the topic to let the chance for other reviewers to express their thoughts.
This topic was automatically closed 5 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.