You can't leak users' data if you don't hold it
Treating user data as “toxic” and simply not collecting it is presented as a compelling alternative to today’s surveillance-heavy app ecosystem. Commenters explore how an iOS journaling app that keeps content encrypted on-device or in the user’s iCloud can greatly reduce breach and coercion risks, but they also question how claims of “we never see your data” hold up under acquisitions, forced updates, and real-world legal obligations. The exchange broadens into data minimization, GDPR-style liability, and the tension between building competitive, cloud-backed products and genuinely respecting user privacy.
Core Principle: Don’t Collect What You Can’t Protect
- Many commenters strongly endorse the idea that not storing data is the only foolproof way not to leak it.
- Related concepts raised: “data is toxic,” data minimization, and even “data abstinence” (only store something if there’s no other option).
- Several see this as aligned with GDPR’s intent: make stored personal data legally “radioactive” so hoarding it is risky, not free.
Limits and Critiques of Matter’s Design
- Some find the app’s very premise (mediating memories through an app) emotionally or socially dystopian, regardless of privacy architecture.
- The marketing site is criticized as vague and buzzword-heavy, with unclear explanation of what the product actually does.
- Concern that data is effectively being “outsourced” to cloud providers like Apple/Google (e.g., iCloud), which users must also trust.
- Confusion over whether storing encrypted photos off-device counts as “not holding data”; some see this as standard encrypted storage, just without keys.
Acquisitions, Updates, and Trust
- A major thread: even if the current team doesn’t hold or exfiltrate data, an acquirer or future management could ship an update that does.
- Points raised: closed-source clients, app-store distribution, and auto-updates undermine claims that users “don’t have to worry” about intentions.
- Open source and reproducible builds are cited as partial mitigations; independent audits and loud in-app notices are suggested.
Law, Incentives, and “Data as Toxic Asset”
- Many argue for stronger legal liability for breaches, regardless of “best efforts,” to push companies toward minimal collection.
- Comparisons to GDPR/CCPA: mixed views on how well they work in practice, but general support for making retention legally expensive.
- Others warn about punishing hacked companies as if they were solely at fault, and about creating perverse incentives (e.g., hacking competitors).
Practical Challenges of Data-Minimal Apps
- Financial and health-related apps often must handle sensitive data (payments, KYC, taxes, bank feeds), making full non-retention impossible.
- Workarounds discussed: use third-party payment pages, external identity providers, client-side encryption, and local-first designs.
- Tools and patterns mentioned include CRDTs, syncable local databases, passkeys/SSO for auth, and projects like Solid for user-owned data pods.
Apps, Wellbeing, and Addiction
- Side debate: apps promising “better memories” vs simply living life; some say no app will make you happier compared to offline time.
- Others note that for many people (e.g., gig workers between jobs) phone use is a realistic way to pass time.
- Disagreement over how truly “addictive” modern social and game apps are, but broad concern about attention-manipulating designs.