4 ms·

> 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

> 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 ago
You 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    Let's can the snark. That access was only ever used for screen rendering for a flagship app on a flagship device, temporarily.
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      You 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 ago
        We'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.

Karunamon 9y ago

You 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Let's can the snark. That access was only ever used for screen rendering for a flagship app on a flagship device, temporarily.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    You 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 ago
      We'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.