3 ms·
Similar Guardian article with no paywall: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/09/facebook-spying-on-you-microphone-creepy-data-conspiracy-theories h
by Karunamon 9y ago
Similar Guardian article with no paywall: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/09/facebook-spying-on-you-microphone-creepy-data-conspiracy-theories https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/09/facebook-...
That said, this is a quite silly conspiracy theory. Believing the "recording" theory requires you to believe that Apple and Google both are in cahoots with Facebook to give them a rootkit-like API for mic and location access that override all of the OS-level controls and warnings about when that hardware is in use, and hide it from the data and battery usage stats on the phone.
This API, when (not if) found, would be a watershed moment for privacy legislation directed at all three companies. Little to gain, potentially the whole farm to lose.
- vinchuco 9y ago>this is a quite silly conspiracy theory. Seems like you put conspiracy theories in two boxes. So what's on the other box?
- Karunamon 9y agoTheories with evidence to support them.
- vinchuco 9y agoReasonable box label. I meant what's inside.
- Karunamon 9y agoAs an example, the degree to which government agencies are involved with snarfing up private communications from Americans with almost no real oversight. Mostly out of the bogus box when Carnivore came to light, completely out when Snowden did his leaks.
- CaptSpify 9y ago> requires you to believe that Apple and Google both are in cahoots with Facebook to give them a rootkit-like API for mic and location access that override all of the OS-level controls and warnings about when that hardware is in use, and hide it from the data and battery usage stats on the phone. You mean like when they gave Uber special access to grab screenshots even when the Uber app wasn't running? Yeah, totally impossible to believe.
- Karunamon 9y agoYou mean the access that had a completely legitimate reason to be used and was trivially located by way of reading the app's manifest files?
- CaptSpify 9y agoI don't know of any access to record my screen that I didn't authorize that is legitimate, so you must be talking about something different.
- Karunamon 9y agoLet's can the snark. That access was only ever used for screen rendering for a flagship app on a flagship device, temporarily.
- CaptSpify 9y agoYou started the snarkiness and now that it's being used against you, you are upset? You said that the app would have to have special access, and that it would absurd if they were given that. But they were given that. I can only believe that you are trolling at this point, and won't discuss this any further with you until you bring arguments in good faith.
- Karunamon 9y agoWe're talking about two different things here; in Uber's case, they were given access to an API in a completely above-board way. There was a legitimate reason, the access was used to work around a hardware limitation in a temporary way. In this case, you're talking about something that completely bypasses the entitlement/permission control of the OS, something which both Apple and Google have no reason to ever add. Uber actually used a private one with Apple's consent, (the com.private.apple- entitlement) while there is no evidence of any such private APIs being used in the Facebook apps. Calling people trolls when you disagree with them because of your own misunderstanding isn't allowed here.