Snapchat promises to make your photos, videos, and messages disappear. But promises are one thing, and actions are another. According to a new report, the service isn't as secure as it claims .
The popular app stood out in a study published on Thursday, not for its performance, but because it received only one star out of six for the way it protects its customers' data from government requests. The annual study by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group, evaluated more than 24 companies across various sectors. One of the criteria it evaluated was also the security the company provides when a government asks for user data to be handed over.
The Snapchat service just got one star, for the policy it follows in the guidelines set by law enforcement authorities.
“This is particularly concerning, because the Snapchat service collects extremely sensitive data from its users, and may endanger users' photos” the EFF report states. “Due to the large number of users and non‑users whose photos end up on Snapchat, the service should publicly commit to requiring permission before handing over its users' data to law‑enforcement authorities. We call on them to change course.”
The company naturally denied the EFF's accusations that it hands over data, even in the absence of a warrant. The service representative Mary Ritti told HuffPost that the company “usually requires a warrant when it receives a request from the authorities.”
The EFF report adds to the negative reviews that Snapchat has received in its three years of operation.
Last week, the controversial company paid a fine to the Federal Trade Commission because it had deceived users with its statement that it deletes messages sent through the service, about how much data is collected, and about the security measures it follows.
On May 8, the company said that the issues have been resolved and that it continues “to invest in security and to prevent abuse.”
In January, Anonymous published phone numbers and usernames from 4.6 million Snapchat users. A security research team later stated that the company had ignored their warnings about a significant security flaw that existed on their website and allowed hackers to obtain users' personal data.
