New terms of service for Snapchat has some users concerned

New terms of service for Snapchat has some users concerned

Concerns arose about the privacy and distribution of content, following a Twitter post.

Following an update to their Terms of Service, Snapchat has some of its users concerned. Some users have interpreted the update to mean that Snapchat can retain the personal messages of its users, display them publicly, and sell them to a third party.

The Washington Post reports that Kal Penn, an actor and former staff member of the White House drew attention to the new terms, via Twitter. Many more expressed their concerns, forcing Snapchat to post a blog explaining that private images and messages are deleted from the app’s servers once seen or expired.

Snapchat did say, however, that the new terms do give the company “broad licence” to its user’s content. According to Snapchat, this clause applies only to content shared publicly via the “Live Stories” feature, which may potentially be distributed onto other platforms. The policy also dealt with the Replay function, which charges users who want to re-watch a video more than once.

The terms created by Snapchat are not very different from those found on other sites, that are occasionally met with concern after a change in conditions. Snapchat is hoping to quell some of the concerns by urging users to read the terms they are upset about.

Few people read, or even understand most Terms of Service agreements for a website or mobile application. Instead, the majority of users rely on a call to action, like that of Kal Penn’s, to know if any concerning changes are occurring.

Research shows that it would take up to 244 hours a year for an average American to read the privacy policy of every site they visit, in a year.

Snapchat users may have heightened concerns following previous privacy problems from the app. Snapchat’s “Find Friends” feature exposed the phone numbers of over 4 million users in late 2013.  In 2014, Snapchat had to settle charges that it was dishonest about how the “disappearing” elements of the application actually worked.

 

Be social, please share!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail