May, 14 2021, 12:00am EDT
28 Groups Denounce Facebook's Plan to Extended Data Collection by Pestering WhatsApp Users, Degrading Features
WASHINGTON
A coalition of 28 groups across the globe today sent a letter to Facebook demanding the company stop intimidating WhatsApp users to accept extended data collection, originally set to take effect on May 15.
Instead of forcing users to immediately accept new terms, Facebook is now pestering WhatsApp users to accept its policy change by May 15 or, under a new opaque timeframe, within a few weeks. WhatsApp will continually remind users to accept the new privacy policy and gradually degrade or remove core features of the app for those who do not--such as removing access to their personal chat list and deactivating message notifications. The company has not said when it plans to start restricting features.
"Despite persistent, international calls to respect people's privacy, the revised plan still prioritizes Facebook's exploitative business practices over basic privacy rights," the groups said. Facebook must immediately stop asking WhatsApp users to accept a degraded privacy policy and should reverse course on this latest move against global communications, the groups maintain.
"Facebook's prospective business model relies on extended data integration between WhatsApp and Facebook to benefit its own bottom line at the expense of user privacy. Facebook appears dedicated to continuing exploiting WhatsApp data to advance its marketing and commercial interests. Facebook has shown time and again that it simply cannot be trusted to safeguard our privacy or data," the letter reads.
"We must try to make sure Facebook is in possession of less of our data, not more. We simply cannot let the globe's messaging service function as Mark Zuckerberg's latest data goldmine. Given that Facebook's business model predicated on privacy invasion and consumer exploitation, Facebook never should have been allowed to acquire WhatsApp. The time to break up Facebook has come. The time to act is now. Save WhatsApp!"
- Burcu Kilic, digital rights program director, Public Citizen (U.S)
"Terms of usage constantly change to use business models that capitalize on member data with little regard to user privacy. We must ensure that communities, many of whom are Latino, are not held hostage by Facebook. The threat of being dropped from WhatsApp for not accepting privacy changes that only serve Facebook is reprehensible and shameful!"
- Jose M. Vargas, executive director, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (U.S.)
"Facebook continues to aggressively undermine the privacy rights of people using its platforms, including WhatsApp. To squeeze further monetization from WhatsApp, it's working to rewire this essential global messaging service to further incorporate Facebook's myriad of extensive commercial data-gathering practices. Facebook's priorities of placing its constant search for greater revenues over the interest of the public is one reason why the company must be tightly regulated, and WhatsApp must be restored as an independent entity."
- Jeff Chester, executive director, Center for Digital Democracy (U.S.)
"Facebook has repeatedly broken the privacy promises it made when it acquired WhatsApp. It's time that privacy regulators worldwide and stop Facebook from misusing WhatsApp user data."
- Caitriona Fitzgerald, deputy director, Electronic Privacy Information Center (U.S.)
"Facebook's continuing insistence on exploiting all the people who aren't protected by privacy laws like GDPR shows how tone deaf this big tech monopoly still is in this crucial moment of reckoning. From all sides, people are demanding that their privacy rights be valued more than big tech profits. That Facebook would betray its own promises from when it acquired WhatsApp and continue to push forward in its cruel plan to manipulate and exploit people who are reliant on WhatsApp says a lot not only about the company's promises, but the company's prevailing motivations. Let the way that the WhatsApp community is being treated serve as a warning sign that Facebook has not learned and is not changing. In fact, with this move they're doubling down on abusive surveillance capitalist practices while gaslighting their customers."
- Lia Holland, campaigns & communications director, Fight for the Future (U.S.)
"WhatsApp is the most used instant messaging app in Latin America, at least partially thanks to zero-rating plans that allow people to communicate through the app without affecting their plan's data cap. The changes to WhatsApp privacy policy pushed by Facebook strengthen its dominant position in the market, making even more difficult to look for alternatives more respectful of people's rights."
- Maria Paz Canales, executive director, Derechos Digitales (Latin America)
"It is the newer people joining WhatsApp that brings all the value that the network holds. Zuckerberg cannot be allowed to break his promise and still retain WhatsApp. Regulators across the world must see to it. There has been some good news from Germany in this regard, and we are sure more will follow, with citizen groups keeping up the pressure. The recent announcement that the coercive action on WhatsApp users will be administered slowly over a few weeks and not suddenly is a cruel joke, akin to telling a condemned prisoner that he will not beheaded but killed by slow strangulation."
- Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director, IT for Change (India)
"WhatsApp and Facebook, in a clear abuse of dominant position, share users' personal data without legal basis, without clear purposes, and without any possibility of opposition by its users. It's essential that the companies start respecting consumers liberty of choice and right to self-determination by giving them granular options to determine what and how data it will be collected, with what purpose and by whom."
- Juliana Oms, attorney, Brazilian Institute for Consumer Protection (IDEC) (Brazil)
"Facebook is adopting a double-standard: good behavior in countries with data-protection laws, and trying to get away with abusive data practices everywhere else, such as this 'open-timeframe' for accepting the new policy. The fact that executives are bragging that most users have already accepted an abusive policy is alarming. It is time to be the company you claim to be and stop abusing your economic power."
- Flora Rebello Arduini, senior campaigner, SumOfUs (Brazil)
"For too many people, leaving WhatsApp - especially when so many rely on it to keep in touch with their loved ones - is not a viable option. Facebook knows this, yet the company still wants to force users to accept a policy that would undermine their privacy. This is a blatant abuse of their dominance. Already South Africa's information regulator has sounded the alarm about the new policy contravening the country's Protection of Personal Information Act (PoPIA) and how the new policy is discriminatory as people in some parts of the world would enjoy significantly more privacy protections than users elsewhere. Mark Zuckerberg ignoring this call would be a blatant undermining of people's privacy in the interest of profit."
- Palesa Ramolefo, campaigner, mobi (South Africa)
"We are worried about the instability to which users in Paraguay and the global south in general are subjected to when it comes to privacy policies and terms of services that are constantly changing. It is not fair, particularly when so many individuals don't have a choice but to use WhatsApp due to poor connectivity and infrastructure."
- Eduardo Carrillo, human rights and public policies analyst, TEDIC (Paraguay)
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
'Straight-Up Nazi Stuff': Trump Admin Plans to Strip More Naturalized Americans of Citizenship
"Requiring monthly quotas that are 10 times higher than the total annual number of denaturalizations in recent years," said one former immigration official, "turns a serious and rare tool into a blunt instrument and fuels unnecessary fear and uncertainty."
Dec 18, 2025
Policy experts were skeptical Wednesday that the Trump administration could legally or practically carry out its threat to strip more naturalized Americans of their citizenship. Still, they warned that new guidance issued by the White House to immigration officials would ramp up "fear and terror" in immigrant communities and could portend the targeting of naturalized citizens who President Donald Trump views as adversaries.
The guidance was issued Tuesday to US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) field offices, with officers directed to supply the Department of Justice (DOJ) with "100-200 denaturalization cases per month” in the 2026 fiscal year.
The denaturalization process is "deliberately hard" for the federal government, noted American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, and stripping people of the citizenship is a rare step only taken in cases of fraud when they applied to be a citizen or in other narrow circumstances.
As such, between 2017-25, there have been just over 120 denaturalization cases filed with the Office of Immigration Litigation at the DOJ.
Under the first Trump administration, denaturalization cases peaked at 90 in one year in 2018, and the directive issued Tuesday signaled the White House is aiming for a far bigger escalation as it also continues its mass deportation operation and blocks people from seeking asylum as they are permitted to under international law.
Reichlin-Melnick called the directive for a denaturalization quota "vicious and cruel," and pointed out that the president is asking USCIS and the DOJ to take on an onerous task.
"These cases are hard to file and win, and require a lot of DOJ resources, and the DOJ is stretched thin already. So we’ll see; I have serious doubts about their ability to do this," said Reichlin-Melnick.
USCIS refers cases to the DOJ, which must prove in a federal court that it has "unequivocal evidence" that someone obtained their citizenship illegally or fraudulently.
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that citizenship and naturalization are too precious and fundamental to our democracy for the government to take it away on their whim. Instead of wasting resources digging through Americans’ files, USCIS should do its job of processing applications, as Congress mandated,” Amanda Baran, a former senior USCIS official who served during the Biden administration, told the New York Times.
Naturalized Americans account for 26 million people in the US, with 800,000 people sworn in last year. In most cases, a person who loses their citizenship status is classified as a legal permanent resident.
Trump has repeatedly called to denaturalize Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and to deport her over her criticism of his policies, and has made the same threat against New York Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist.
In those threatened cases, wrote Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice, earlier this month, "it appears that crime isn’t so much a motivation as disloyalty."
"Stripping citizens of their citizenship in the name of making the electorate more 'American' is arguably one of the most un-American acts imaginable," wrote Waldman. "We are a nation of immigrants and also a nation of laws. The courts must continue to ensure that those laws protect naturalized citizens from being punished for speaking out."
Three other Brennan Center experts also recently wrote about the history of denaturalization efforts in the US, including during the "Red Scare" of the 1950s:
Sen. Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin led witch hunts, with denaturalization often used as a tool against accused communists or sympathizers. Among those targets was Harry Bridges, an Australian-born, nationally known labor leader accused of being a communist, who faced an ultimately unsuccessful campaign to revoke his citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, not once, but twice.
"This is straight-up Nazi stuff and I’m calling on my fellow Jewish Americans who know where this can lead to be in the vanguard against it," said Dylan Willams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, also noting that the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee has endorsed Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.), who has called for the denaturalization and expulsion of Muslim Americans and immigrants.
Sarah Pierce, a former USCIS official, told the Times that Trump's quota for denaturalization cases "risks politicizing citizenship revocation" as it has been in the past.
“And requiring monthly quotas that are 10 times higher than the total annual number of denaturalizations in recent years," she said, "turns a serious and rare tool into a blunt instrument and fuels unnecessary fear and uncertainty for the millions of naturalized Americans.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
House GOP to Skip Town Early for Holiday Recess as Healthcare Premiums Soar, Epstein Files Loom
"The same GOP that voted last summer to give the richest Americans and most profitable companies trillions of dollars in tax cuts somehow can't find the funds this winter to ensure 20 million Americans can afford their health insurance."
Dec 18, 2025
The US House was originally scheduled to be in session on Friday, but the Republican leadership gave members a green light to skip town on Thursday for the two-week holiday recess without voting to prevent massive health insurance premium hikes for tens of millions of Americans.
The decision to let members leave early came after House Democrats secured enough support from swing-district Republicans to force a vote on legislation that would extend Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies that are set to expire on December 31, sending premiums soaring.
Democrats on Wednesday demanded an immediate vote on the proposed three-year extension of the ACA tax credits, but Republicans instead pushed to the floor and passed their own healthcare bill that would leave around 100,000 more Americans uninsured per year over the next decade—on top of the millions set to lose coverage due to the expiration of the enhanced subsidies.
The GOP bill is doomed to fail in the narrowly Republican-controlled Senate, which voted down a Democratic push for an extension of the subsidies earlier this month.
More than 20 million Americans relied on the tax credits to afford health insurance. With their expiration, ACA marketplace premiums are set to more than double on average, pricing many people out of coverage entirely.
"Congressional Republicans could have followed through on their promises to help families afford the basics by extending the premium tax credit enhancements to help them enroll in affordable, comprehensive coverage. Instead, they recycled old ideas, refused to address the current affordability crisis—and made plans to go home," Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said in a statement Wednesday.
"On the brink of this deadline, some Republicans have recognized that the stakes for families are too high to do nothing," Parrott added, pointing to the four GOP lawmakers who signed the discharge petition. "A House bill to extend the premium tax credit enhancements now has the required signatures on its discharge petition to force a vote on the House floor. Republican policymakers should step up and put the needs of individuals and families first."
"If Speaker Johnson refuses to bring forth the vote, he’s telling the American people loud and clear that rising healthcare costs are acceptable to him."
It's unclear when the discharged House Democratic bill will get a vote, as the chamber is not scheduled to return until January 6, 2026—after the ACA tax credits expire.
"If Speaker Johnson refuses to bring forth the vote, he’s telling the American people loud and clear that rising healthcare costs are acceptable to him," said Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), who is running to unseat Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) in next year's midterm election.
David Kass, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness, said in a statement Thursday that "instead of siding with millions of everyday Americans, they voted to increase healthcare costs which will now put affordable coverage out of reach for millions."
"Congressional Republicans once again revealed whose side they're on," said Kass. "The same GOP that voted last summer to give the richest Americans and most profitable companies trillions of dollars in tax cuts somehow can't find the funds this winter to ensure 20 million Americans can afford their health insurance."
The House Republican leadership's decision to start the holiday recess also came ahead of the Friday deadline for the Trump administration to release most of the Epstein files, as required by recently enacted legislation.
"View all political developments for the rest of the week in light of the fact that the Epstein files are supposed to be released on Friday," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). "House Republicans just suddenly cancelled congressional session Friday and are sending everyone home Thursday evening."
Keep ReadingShow Less
63% of US Voters Oppose Attack on Venezuela as Trump's March to War Accelerates
The new poll comes as the US president openly plots to seize Venezuela’s oil supply.
Dec 18, 2025
President Donald Trump has taken increasingly aggressive actions against Venezuela in recent weeks, but a new poll released Wednesday shows US voters are not on board with a new war.
A new poll from Quinnipiac University found that 63% of voters oppose military operations inside Venezuela, with just 25% registering support.
What's more, a US military strike in Venezuela would draw significant opposition even from Republican voters, 33% of whom told Quinnipiac that they would oppose such an action. Eighty-nine percent of Democratic voters and 68% of independent voters said they were opposed to a US military campaign in Venezuela.
Trump's policy of bombing suspected drug trafficking boats in international waters, which many legal experts consider to be acts of murder, drew significantly less opposition in the new survey than a prospective attack on Venezuela, but it is still unpopular, with 42% in favor and 53% opposed.
A potential war is also unpopular with Venezuelans, as a recent survey from Caracas-based pollster Datanalisis found 55% opposed to a foreign military attack on their nation, with 23% in favor.
The Trump administration's boat strikes, which have now killed at least 99 people, have been just one aspect of its campaign of military aggression against Venezuela. The US military last week seized a Venezuelan oil tanker, and Trump has said that it's only a matter of time before the military launches strikes against targets inside the country.
Trump on Wednesday also said that one goal of his campaign against Venezuela would be to seize the country's oil supply.
“Getting land, oil rights, whatever we had—they took it away because we had a president that maybe wasn’t watching,” Trump said while talking to reporters. “But they’re not gonna do that. We want it back. They took our oil rights. We had a lot of oil there. They threw our companies out. And we want it back."
Venezuela first nationalized its oil industry in 1976, and the US has no legitimate claim to the nation's petroleum supply.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular