11 ms·

Zuckerberg hits users with the hard truth: You agreed to this

91 points by popee 9y ago

api 9y ago
This is actually the correct response. A better way of saying it is: Facebook is not free. You pay by surrendering data about yourself and your friends.
- xboxnolifes 9y ago
  I never cared about Facebook using data collected from their platforms, but the whole "Collecting phone data because you agreed to the very wide permission system implemented in Android systems", is a bit sketchy.
  - austincheney 9y ago
    Facebook doesn't have to anything you didn't deliberately agree to surrender. That isn't very sketchy.
    - Hupriene 9y ago
      Facebook doesn't have to anything you didn't unconsciously agree to surrender. That isn't very sketchy. Fixed that for you.
      - thecatspaw 9y ago
        I dont remember agreeing to facebook keeping lots of private data about me. (I dont have facebook)
    - tatersolid 9y ago
      No user, even if they read the TOS, believed they were opting into perpetual call and SMS logging. It’s dark UX and the terrible Amdroid permissions system that tricked them into it.
      - austincheney 9y ago
        Its not dark UX merely because you don't like it. Dark UX suggests a control designed to trick you into making a decision you would deliberate otherwise not make. I looked at their opt-in control and it is very clear that you have to opt-in. In other words, if you didn't want Facebook to have all your call and SMS data then why would you deliberately agree to give it to Facebook with their very obvious consent form?
        dictum 9y ago
        > their very obvious consent form I haven't used FB in a long time and I never used their mobile app, so here's a genuine request: do you have a screenshot or some example of how they gather consent for this?
        austincheney 9y ago
        The Vanity Fair article about this featured a screenshot if you scroll down a little bit: https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/25/facebook-denies-it-collects-call-and-sms-data-from-phones-without-permission/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/25/facebook-denies-it-collect...
        dictum 9y ago
        Thanks. It confirms my empirical experience that most users (of all backgrounds) don't read, those who read don't fully comprehend the information, and those who comprehend it are thrown off by cute illustrations or the urgency of what they want to accomplish in the moment. Personally, I'd prefer the message to be split in two parts, like so: ------ # Text anyone in your phone This lets friends find each other on Facebook and helps us create a better experience for everyone. ## Privacy This will continously upload: - Info about your contacts like phone numbers and nicknames - Your call and text history. ------ (I don't think I'd have gotten FB to a half-trillion market cap.)
        tatersolid 9y ago
        > Dark UX suggests a control designed to trick you into making a decision you would deliberate otherwise not make. Thats exactly what this is, Dark UX. No reasonable person would think that “text anyone on my phone” means “log all my calls and text messages in perpetuity” despite the deliberately obtuse (and light gray!) paragraph below. It’s a trap.
    - OrganicMSG 9y ago
      They supposedly have a ghost profile on me, given I have never had an account. I find that quite sketchy.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
pieter_mj 9y ago
Yes you consented, but it's not an informed consent. Facebook will do anything to keep you as uninformed as possible (unreadable legalese, dark UX patterns, opt-outs, ...)
- austincheney 9y ago
  So many excuses. The story "Of course I agreed, but its all their fault because I didn't know what I agreed to" gets old. Everybody has known for years that Facebook uses this data against you to make money. If it didn't upset you before why would it suddenly upset you now?
  - natestemen 9y ago
    To be completely honest, I don't think many people outside the tech bubble have realized the extent to which facebook used and collected users data. I just don't feel like it's fair to say everybody has known for years. Maybe in your circle, but certainly not in every ones.
    - austincheney 9y ago
      > Maybe in your circle What if the audience in question is limited to people reading Hacker News? Do they have an excuse for the sudden change of heart?
      - trgn 9y ago
        Absolutely, people change their opinions all the time, they don't need an excuse, rather, a welcoming pat on the back. It's a good thing!
      - pjc50 9y ago
        I thought HN had been fairly privacy-skeptical of Facebook for a while. Often with these things it's not the same people switching from a view to its opposite, it's more that one group shuts up and the other speaks up. The collective appears to change its mind without any individual having crossed the floor.
nobleach 9y ago
Statements like "you agreed to this" are disingenuous at best. Probably a more truthful statement would be, "you had to know we were getting SOMETHING out of this." While yes, the terms and conditions were completely forthright about what Facebook could do with collected data, they were counting on an a very small percentage of their users actually reading (or caring) about those terms. I can agree that no one has the right to be outraged though. The only sticky part here is that if I violate Facebook's Terms and Services, they'll terminate my account. They'll most likely still use my data after the termination of our agreement though.
mtgx 9y ago
"And sure, we were as misleading as possible about it and tried our best to trick you into clicking that Next button, but that doesn't count, right?" This reminds me of Steve Jobs' "You're holding it wrong." Tone deaf. Platforms always share the most responsibility. This applies to any UX thing. You can argue that the users are "idiots" for not doing what you think they're supposed to do, or you can fix your UX to make it as easy to understand as possible. Alternatively, you can design your UX with dark patterns to ensure that users do a lot of stuff that are not good for them and aren't supposed to do, but you convince them or trick them into doing anyway, because that's good for you. I also think that by using this strategy Facebook may win the battle, but it's going to lose the war. Eventually people will go "Well, then, if it's my fault, then maybe I shouldn't be accepting all of that stuff Facebook is pushing into my face in their apps." And then Facebook will slowly but surely die as people use it less and less as "Facebook intended" them to use it.
hashkb 9y ago
He obviously doesn't watch South Park.
mulletbum 9y ago
If you've already agreed, then that is too bad, that data is already in their hands. However, if you would like to make sure to let Facebook know that your agreement is over, feel free to go here: https://www.facebook.com/help/delete_account https://www.facebook.com/help/delete_account
mikro2nd 9y ago
I never cared about what Facebook did with the data they collected from their users because I did NOT consent. I chose to remain off their platform. I am, however, reliably informed that they nevertheless /persist/ in gathering data about me -- presumably via friends and family and the FB apps they use, along with backend pattern and facial recognition and so on. Any claim of theirs that I "consented" to them building, using and profiting by my foibles, relationships and habits is false. Not merely disingenuous; an outright lie.
- 411mrc 9y ago
  Agreed, and in the case of call logs that may exist on me it seems very close to an illegal wiretap for the party never a part of Facebook (me).
- candiodari 9y ago
  I think at this point, given that both Android and IOS make giving apps access to your contact list easy, you are in fact in these sorts of graph databases in a couple dozen organizations by now, courtesy of people you know. Facebook is not going to be the worst of them by a looooooooooooooong shot. Pokemon Go, Skype (now Microsoft), Whatsapp, Snapchat, Line & WeChat if you live in Asia, Path, Yelp, Twitter, ... all the bigger internet companies [1] And sadly there's the really cheesy ones like "Fantasy War Tactics" [2]. How many of your friends play that sort of crap ? [1] https://venturebeat.com/2012/02/14/iphone-address-book/ https://venturebeat.com/2012/02/14/iphone-address-book/ [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/AndroidGaming/comments/42ok29/why_would_a_game_need_access_to_contacts_and_phone/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AndroidGaming/comments/42ok29/why_w...
dustingetz 9y ago
Another prisoner's dilemma stuck at backstab/backstab. No individual company can offer simple terms, because it's against their short-term interests. Simple terms only work if everyone else offers simple terms. Legal precedent and regulatory capture has evolved us to a local maxima.
AJRF 9y ago
"Hey we would like to give you weather reports and the ability to see when people in your area are selling things P.s we will sell this on to third parties so they can target you to influence elections." The problem here is Facebook doesn't ever word things like this, they up sell Facebook platform features, even if they are segways into increased advertising revenue. I think regulation should have a stance on this. It needs to be easy for users to see exactly how their data is being used, and in a timely fashion. If the company can't protect our data, they don't deserve to have it. What do you say Mark? You agreed to this* * - https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180325071038-01-facebook-apology-note-exlarge-169.jpg https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180325071038-01-faceb...
matt_s 9y ago
Why don't they just come out with a subscription version of Facebook? $40/year for no ads, no data miners or data sharing and a customizable "news" feed (e.g. no shared posts from crazy Uncle, prioritize family, etc.) Some percentage of users will do that. If 1% of 2 billion users choose it, then they get $800 million per year. It seems logical if people don't like being the product, let them pay for the product, right?
- loceng 9y ago
  I've always had the thought that the reason is likely that if you have the money to pay for $40/year then you're likely potentially worth more to advertisers, and therefore they wouldn't want to give an option/leak to exclude the most valuable eyeballs from advertisers.
- nealdt 9y ago
  I feel the same and was happy to pay the $1 to WhatsApp, until that changed. I can only imagine that FB values its unfettered access to you and your data as worth more than $40 or double that!
  - jerf 9y ago
    Facebook revenue 2017: 40.7 billion. [1] Facebook 2017 user count: 2.2 billion. [2] A simple division doesn't tell the whole story, but gets us into ballpark territory, call it $20/user/year. It's probably something power-distribution-ish, with a few whales clicking on the most profitable scams and mesothelioma ads, and a long tail of people who are below average. Much like with what network TV actually makes per eyeball-second, it's actually shockingly easy to outbid advertisers. One of the reasons I kinda look askance at the whole advertising ecosystem is precisely that it seems like nobody is even trying anything else despite the fact it seems like it ought to be a very swift and huge boost to Facebook's real revenues and stock price if they could convince people to give them $50/year. The obvious offer to me would be some sort of all-inclusive cloud storage service for photos or something, which, I mean, they're already doing. The fact that this seems to be unthinkable is what makes me start giving a bit more credence to the idea that there truly is some sort of ulterior motive at play here. Even just "here's $34.99 for the year, facebook, remove the damned ads! and now that you don't need it, stop tracking me" would probably make them a shitton of cash, even without any other changes like giving you back more control over your feed now that you've removed their incentives to manipulate it for their own advertising gain. Where's all that notorious capitalistic greed? And suppose we were living in an alternate universe where that was an option... how different would the news stories of the past week look? There's non-monetary reasons for this too. (Compare with Netflix, for instance. I pay them real money. They get lots of real preference data. It would totally be "monetizable" levels of detail. But there's basically nothing they could possibly do with that data that's worth more than the ~$150/year I give them, and trying to start stuffing ads in my face runs a marginal risk that I'll just leave that is probably not worth it. Maybe when Facebook first came out, subscriptions were out of the question, but they are clearly an option now.) [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/277229/facebooks-annual-revenue-and-net-income/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/277229/facebooks-annual-... [2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly...
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
Many people use their personal phones for work calls. They may have inadvertently breached NDAs, and in some cases laws, by not paying attention to their privacy settings.
- paulie_a 9y ago
  No offense but if you have an NDA that can be broken by using your personal phone you probably shouldn't use your personal phone to make those communications.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > if you have an NDA that can be broken by using your personal phone Almost every NDA, including those standard with employment packages, include in the definition of confidential information the time, date and duration of phone calls with customers and sensitive suppliers. Anyone in a customer-facing role would thus be required to keep those data confidential, i.e. not disclose it without proper authorization to a third party, e.g. Facebook.
    - paulie_a 9y ago
      Then it's probably not a great idea to use a personal phone to make those communications then. Whoever wanted the NDA should provide one.
      - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        > Whoever wanted the NDA should provide one This might work for an employee defending against their employer. It wouldn’t work for the employer relative to their customers; or a contractor to their clients; or any other situation. In any case, my point is Facebook may have caused many people legal harm.
OrganicMSG 9y ago
That's funny, as I'd say that; >"Contact uploading is optional. People are expressly asked if they want to give permission to upload their contacts from their phone – it’s explained right there in the apps when you get started." doesn't really cover the complaint from Dylan McKay regarding; > "metadata about every text message I've ever received or sent" and; > "the metadata of every cellular call I've ever made, including time and duration"
Ajedi32 9y ago
FYI, Zuckerberg's _not_ referring to the EULA or TOS. He's talking about this dialog box in the app itself: https://i.imgur.com/zGUdifB.png https://i.imgur.com/zGUdifB.png Specifically, the very first sentence of the dialog box, which says: > Continuously upload info about your contacts like phone numbers and nicknames, and your call and text history. The article's not entirely clear on that point, so I thought I'd mention it here.
- callahad 9y ago
  Thanks for the screenshot. That's a pretty clear and overt prompt. ...And one I would never agree to, yet my address book is in my Facebook data export. I wonder what previous iterations of that prompt looked like, especially around the time of Android 4.0, which must have been about when I installed the app. Does anyone know if there are old screenshots, or historic versions of the APK available anywhere to check?
YesNoYesNoNo101 9y ago
The last line of defence of the con main: You've signed above the line, s
lmedinas 9y ago
To be honest what really worries me is the people who have "agreed to this" without even realizing anything remotely closer to this. I mean people with poor education to publish everyday photos and texts into Facebook.
falcolas 9y ago
Dear Zuckerberg, If we consented to this and were still genuinely surprised, its an indication that the consent was not sufficiently informed. This is your problem, not ours. Most of us Average Joes just don't understand the scope of what data collection is possible when we give you access to our phone's features - especially when you couch the access request for quite innocuous and even helpful features. Worse, we don't really understand what can be done with this data. That you can take location data and will use it to infer where we live and work - that you could use it to categorize us according to race and religion - these kinds of possibilities just never crossed our minds when you asked for our location to share with nearby friends. So, no, we did not agree to this - we were not well enough informed to agree with this. To paraphrase a meme: You might be legally correct, but you're an asshole.
- liberte82 9y ago
  No, it's literally your problem, if there are things happening with the data that are causing you problems.
  - falcolas 9y ago
    If that problem leads the Average Joe to tell politicians to do something about it, is it really AJ's problem anymore? The problem and consequences to individuals will only really lead to directed consumerism and outrage. Which is going to matter more?
  - dlwdlw 9y ago
    The libertarian attitude only works if you assume everyone is equal. Children are not. And because access to knowledge and wisdom (which includes when and how to seek out knowledge, usually passed on by educated parents.) huge portions of people can be left in a semi-childlike state. Tendency to violence, under-appreciation for exponentials, etc... The role of parental systems is to mitigate the issues of orphans who become disenfranchised. Entire races can be orphaned from traditional values of they were severed from their cultural root. (slaves) the elderly also often become orphaned and so are a big target for scams. Excessive and imposed "family" is just a cult but that doesn't mean family values don't at a role in functioning society. There is a limit to individual ability.
908087 9y ago
I never signed up, yet I know Facebook has data about me anyway. How exactly did I "agree to this"?
andy_ppp 9y ago
This discussion was flagged marked as dead and knocked off the front page within a few minutes, is that normal? It seems strange that it’s no longer flagged or dead but still off the homepage. I find this to be the most damaging Facebook story on there so I worry about why it’s been removed when the discussion on here was interesting.
thisisit 9y ago
I have a Facebook account on which I have shared as little as possible. When I downloaded the data off the platform, it was completely empty which was no surprise. But, as it turned out my friends were not so lucky. All of them had my number saved. Some had my birthday. Quite a few had tagged me at my work location etc. So, even with efforts on my side to try and not share data, FB still has a profile on me. I find it hard to believe that there are lot of other platforms which can build such a cache of information about me, without me giving them explicit permission.
liberte82 9y ago
Remember when people laughed off Stallman as an extremist?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Balgair 9y ago
Anecdote: I was in Australia once and idly flipping through the hotel room's TV channels. I happened upon the Aussie Dateline, their version a popular US program on NBC that does some alright in-depth reporting on special issues. As an aside: one thing to remember about Australia compared to the US is that the Aussie version of things is like the US version, but in a fun house mirror. Everything is called the same, and is similar, but is just different enough as to give you 'category-vertigo'. The Aussie BBQ is a BBQ, but not really anything like a US BBQ. The Aussie seafood is seafood, but not really anything like US seafood. Aussie radio is radio, but not really anything like US radio. ETC. The Aussie version of Dateline that I stumbled upon was taking an in-depth look at a rancher in QLD and his issues with an oil/gas company. The rancher quit school at 16 (generally, a wonderful idea in commonwealth countries that the US should import) and became a boxer, then a car salesman, then a rodeo bronco rider, and then a cattle rancher with a wife and 3 young kids. Very importantly, neither he nor his wife could read. His contracts would be signed with an 'X' and a handshake. From what I could tell about QLD law, every contract must be read to a person that cannot read, and a sense of 'good faith' must exist between both parties. Well, a US oil/gas company came to him and found the black gold under his ranch. They set up many pump-jacks and ruined his grazing land. He quickly went bankrupt as all his cattle died. So he went to court over it. The US company put their hand to their face and basically went: 'Nee-neer-Nee-Neer-Nee-neer, you signed the contract! Ha!' The contract was written in a very favorable way to the company and screwed the rancher. So much was the stress, that the wife tried to commit suicide. Watching that portion of the interview was heartbreaking. Here was a tough, sunburnt man, brought to tears over finding his wife just about to commit the act. But QLD law was very favorable to the man. The contract was voided as it was created in bad faith and the US company was made to pay to remove the jacks and pay the rancher back for the damages. The Dateline piece was mostly following their attempts in international courts to get the company to pay up, as they had fled Australia in order to skip out on the payment. Here's my point: What the Zuck is doing, by saying: 'Nee-neer-Nee-Neer-Nee-neer, you signed the contract! Ha!', is a very American thing to do; and it won't stand up in many other countries, or even his own. Just because a contract was clicked on and agreed to in bad faith, doesn't mean that he will be able to hide behind that shield forever. Even if you have a piece of paper that says 'I can be an asshole', and everyone has signed it, doesn't mean that you can be an asshole forever. People don't like assholes and they will get lawyers/barristers in to express that feeling.
diek00 9y ago
Mark wants to surpass $100 billion in lost stock, like a champ

91 points by popee 9y ago

api 9y ago

This is actually the correct response. A better way of saying it is: Facebook is not free. You pay by surrendering data about yourself and your friends.

xboxnolifes 9y ago
I never cared about Facebook using data collected from their platforms, but the whole "Collecting phone data because you agreed to the very wide permission system implemented in Android systems", is a bit sketchy.
- austincheney 9y ago
  Facebook doesn't have to anything you didn't deliberately agree to surrender. That isn't very sketchy.
  - Hupriene 9y ago
    Facebook doesn't have to anything you didn't unconsciously agree to surrender. That isn't very sketchy. Fixed that for you.
    - thecatspaw 9y ago
      I dont remember agreeing to facebook keeping lots of private data about me. (I dont have facebook)
  - tatersolid 9y ago
    No user, even if they read the TOS, believed they were opting into perpetual call and SMS logging. It’s dark UX and the terrible Amdroid permissions system that tricked them into it.
    - austincheney 9y ago
      Its not dark UX merely because you don't like it. Dark UX suggests a control designed to trick you into making a decision you would deliberate otherwise not make. I looked at their opt-in control and it is very clear that you have to opt-in. In other words, if you didn't want Facebook to have all your call and SMS data then why would you deliberately agree to give it to Facebook with their very obvious consent form?
      - dictum 9y ago
        > their very obvious consent form I haven't used FB in a long time and I never used their mobile app, so here's a genuine request: do you have a screenshot or some example of how they gather consent for this?
        austincheney 9y ago
        The Vanity Fair article about this featured a screenshot if you scroll down a little bit: https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/25/facebook-denies-it-collects-call-and-sms-data-from-phones-without-permission/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/25/facebook-denies-it-collect...
        dictum 9y ago
        Thanks. It confirms my empirical experience that most users (of all backgrounds) don't read, those who read don't fully comprehend the information, and those who comprehend it are thrown off by cute illustrations or the urgency of what they want to accomplish in the moment. Personally, I'd prefer the message to be split in two parts, like so: ------ # Text anyone in your phone This lets friends find each other on Facebook and helps us create a better experience for everyone. ## Privacy This will continously upload: - Info about your contacts like phone numbers and nicknames - Your call and text history. ------ (I don't think I'd have gotten FB to a half-trillion market cap.)
      - tatersolid 9y ago
        > Dark UX suggests a control designed to trick you into making a decision you would deliberate otherwise not make. Thats exactly what this is, Dark UX. No reasonable person would think that “text anyone on my phone” means “log all my calls and text messages in perpetuity” despite the deliberately obtuse (and light gray!) paragraph below. It’s a trap.
  - OrganicMSG 9y ago
    They supposedly have a ghost profile on me, given I have never had an account. I find that quite sketchy.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

pieter_mj 9y ago

Yes you consented, but it's not an informed consent. Facebook will do anything to keep you as uninformed as possible (unreadable legalese, dark UX patterns, opt-outs, ...)

austincheney 9y ago
So many excuses. The story "Of course I agreed, but its all their fault because I didn't know what I agreed to" gets old. Everybody has known for years that Facebook uses this data against you to make money. If it didn't upset you before why would it suddenly upset you now?
- natestemen 9y ago
  To be completely honest, I don't think many people outside the tech bubble have realized the extent to which facebook used and collected users data. I just don't feel like it's fair to say everybody has known for years. Maybe in your circle, but certainly not in every ones.
  - austincheney 9y ago
    > Maybe in your circle What if the audience in question is limited to people reading Hacker News? Do they have an excuse for the sudden change of heart?
    - trgn 9y ago
      Absolutely, people change their opinions all the time, they don't need an excuse, rather, a welcoming pat on the back. It's a good thing!
    - pjc50 9y ago
      I thought HN had been fairly privacy-skeptical of Facebook for a while. Often with these things it's not the same people switching from a view to its opposite, it's more that one group shuts up and the other speaks up. The collective appears to change its mind without any individual having crossed the floor.

nobleach 9y ago

Statements like "you agreed to this" are disingenuous at best. Probably a more truthful statement would be, "you had to know we were getting SOMETHING out of this." While yes, the terms and conditions were completely forthright about what Facebook could do with collected data, they were counting on an a very small percentage of their users actually reading (or caring) about those terms. I can agree that no one has the right to be outraged though. The only sticky part here is that if I violate Facebook's Terms and Services, they'll terminate my account. They'll most likely still use my data after the termination of our agreement though.

mtgx 9y ago

"And sure, we were as misleading as possible about it and tried our best to trick you into clicking that Next button, but that doesn't count, right?" This reminds me of Steve Jobs' "You're holding it wrong." Tone deaf. Platforms always share the most responsibility. This applies to any UX thing. You can argue that the users are "idiots" for not doing what you think they're supposed to do, or you can fix your UX to make it as easy to understand as possible. Alternatively, you can design your UX with dark patterns to ensure that users do a lot of stuff that are not good for them and aren't supposed to do, but you convince them or trick them into doing anyway, because that's good for you. I also think that by using this strategy Facebook may win the battle, but it's going to lose the war. Eventually people will go "Well, then, if it's my fault, then maybe I shouldn't be accepting all of that stuff Facebook is pushing into my face in their apps." And then Facebook will slowly but surely die as people use it less and less as "Facebook intended" them to use it.

hashkb 9y ago

He obviously doesn't watch South Park.

mulletbum 9y ago

If you've already agreed, then that is too bad, that data is already in their hands. However, if you would like to make sure to let Facebook know that your agreement is over, feel free to go here: https://www.facebook.com/help/delete_account https://www.facebook.com/help/delete_account

mikro2nd 9y ago

I never cared about what Facebook did with the data they collected from their users because I did NOT consent. I chose to remain off their platform. I am, however, reliably informed that they nevertheless /persist/ in gathering data about me -- presumably via friends and family and the FB apps they use, along with backend pattern and facial recognition and so on. Any claim of theirs that I "consented" to them building, using and profiting by my foibles, relationships and habits is false. Not merely disingenuous; an outright lie.

411mrc 9y ago
Agreed, and in the case of call logs that may exist on me it seems very close to an illegal wiretap for the party never a part of Facebook (me).
candiodari 9y ago
I think at this point, given that both Android and IOS make giving apps access to your contact list easy, you are in fact in these sorts of graph databases in a couple dozen organizations by now, courtesy of people you know. Facebook is not going to be the worst of them by a looooooooooooooong shot. Pokemon Go, Skype (now Microsoft), Whatsapp, Snapchat, Line & WeChat if you live in Asia, Path, Yelp, Twitter, ... all the bigger internet companies [1] And sadly there's the really cheesy ones like "Fantasy War Tactics" [2]. How many of your friends play that sort of crap ? [1] https://venturebeat.com/2012/02/14/iphone-address-book/ https://venturebeat.com/2012/02/14/iphone-address-book/ [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/AndroidGaming/comments/42ok29/why_would_a_game_need_access_to_contacts_and_phone/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AndroidGaming/comments/42ok29/why_w...

dustingetz 9y ago

Another prisoner's dilemma stuck at backstab/backstab. No individual company can offer simple terms, because it's against their short-term interests. Simple terms only work if everyone else offers simple terms. Legal precedent and regulatory capture has evolved us to a local maxima.

AJRF 9y ago

"Hey we would like to give you weather reports and the ability to see when people in your area are selling things P.s we will sell this on to third parties so they can target you to influence elections." The problem here is Facebook doesn't ever word things like this, they up sell Facebook platform features, even if they are segways into increased advertising revenue. I think regulation should have a stance on this. It needs to be easy for users to see exactly how their data is being used, and in a timely fashion. If the company can't protect our data, they don't deserve to have it. What do you say Mark? You agreed to this* * - https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180325071038-01-facebook-apology-note-exlarge-169.jpg https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180325071038-01-faceb...

matt_s 9y ago

Why don't they just come out with a subscription version of Facebook? $40/year for no ads, no data miners or data sharing and a customizable "news" feed (e.g. no shared posts from crazy Uncle, prioritize family, etc.) Some percentage of users will do that. If 1% of 2 billion users choose it, then they get $800 million per year. It seems logical if people don't like being the product, let them pay for the product, right?

loceng 9y ago
I've always had the thought that the reason is likely that if you have the money to pay for $40/year then you're likely potentially worth more to advertisers, and therefore they wouldn't want to give an option/leak to exclude the most valuable eyeballs from advertisers.
nealdt 9y ago
I feel the same and was happy to pay the $1 to WhatsApp, until that changed. I can only imagine that FB values its unfettered access to you and your data as worth more than $40 or double that!
- jerf 9y ago
  Facebook revenue 2017: 40.7 billion. [1] Facebook 2017 user count: 2.2 billion. [2] A simple division doesn't tell the whole story, but gets us into ballpark territory, call it $20/user/year. It's probably something power-distribution-ish, with a few whales clicking on the most profitable scams and mesothelioma ads, and a long tail of people who are below average. Much like with what network TV actually makes per eyeball-second, it's actually shockingly easy to outbid advertisers. One of the reasons I kinda look askance at the whole advertising ecosystem is precisely that it seems like nobody is even trying anything else despite the fact it seems like it ought to be a very swift and huge boost to Facebook's real revenues and stock price if they could convince people to give them $50/year. The obvious offer to me would be some sort of all-inclusive cloud storage service for photos or something, which, I mean, they're already doing. The fact that this seems to be unthinkable is what makes me start giving a bit more credence to the idea that there truly is some sort of ulterior motive at play here. Even just "here's $34.99 for the year, facebook, remove the damned ads! and now that you don't need it, stop tracking me" would probably make them a shitton of cash, even without any other changes like giving you back more control over your feed now that you've removed their incentives to manipulate it for their own advertising gain. Where's all that notorious capitalistic greed? And suppose we were living in an alternate universe where that was an option... how different would the news stories of the past week look? There's non-monetary reasons for this too. (Compare with Netflix, for instance. I pay them real money. They get lots of real preference data. It would totally be "monetizable" levels of detail. But there's basically nothing they could possibly do with that data that's worth more than the ~$150/year I give them, and trying to start stuffing ads in my face runs a marginal risk that I'll just leave that is probably not worth it. Maybe when Facebook first came out, subscriptions were out of the question, but they are clearly an option now.) [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/277229/facebooks-annual-revenue-and-net-income/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/277229/facebooks-annual-... [2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly...

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

Many people use their personal phones for work calls. They may have inadvertently breached NDAs, and in some cases laws, by not paying attention to their privacy settings.

paulie_a 9y ago
No offense but if you have an NDA that can be broken by using your personal phone you probably shouldn't use your personal phone to make those communications.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > if you have an NDA that can be broken by using your personal phone Almost every NDA, including those standard with employment packages, include in the definition of confidential information the time, date and duration of phone calls with customers and sensitive suppliers. Anyone in a customer-facing role would thus be required to keep those data confidential, i.e. not disclose it without proper authorization to a third party, e.g. Facebook.
  - paulie_a 9y ago
    Then it's probably not a great idea to use a personal phone to make those communications then. Whoever wanted the NDA should provide one.
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      > Whoever wanted the NDA should provide one This might work for an employee defending against their employer. It wouldn’t work for the employer relative to their customers; or a contractor to their clients; or any other situation. In any case, my point is Facebook may have caused many people legal harm.

OrganicMSG 9y ago

That's funny, as I'd say that; >"Contact uploading is optional. People are expressly asked if they want to give permission to upload their contacts from their phone – it’s explained right there in the apps when you get started." doesn't really cover the complaint from Dylan McKay regarding; > "metadata about every text message I've ever received or sent" and; > "the metadata of every cellular call I've ever made, including time and duration"

Ajedi32 9y ago

FYI, Zuckerberg's _not_ referring to the EULA or TOS. He's talking about this dialog box in the app itself: https://i.imgur.com/zGUdifB.png https://i.imgur.com/zGUdifB.png Specifically, the very first sentence of the dialog box, which says: > Continuously upload info about your contacts like phone numbers and nicknames, and your call and text history. The article's not entirely clear on that point, so I thought I'd mention it here.

callahad 9y ago
Thanks for the screenshot. That's a pretty clear and overt prompt. ...And one I would never agree to, yet my address book is in my Facebook data export. I wonder what previous iterations of that prompt looked like, especially around the time of Android 4.0, which must have been about when I installed the app. Does anyone know if there are old screenshots, or historic versions of the APK available anywhere to check?

YesNoYesNoNo101 9y ago

The last line of defence of the con main: You've signed above the line, s

lmedinas 9y ago

To be honest what really worries me is the people who have "agreed to this" without even realizing anything remotely closer to this. I mean people with poor education to publish everyday photos and texts into Facebook.

falcolas 9y ago

Dear Zuckerberg, If we consented to this and were still genuinely surprised, its an indication that the consent was not sufficiently informed. This is your problem, not ours. Most of us Average Joes just don't understand the scope of what data collection is possible when we give you access to our phone's features - especially when you couch the access request for quite innocuous and even helpful features. Worse, we don't really understand what can be done with this data. That you can take location data and will use it to infer where we live and work - that you could use it to categorize us according to race and religion - these kinds of possibilities just never crossed our minds when you asked for our location to share with nearby friends. So, no, we did not agree to this - we were not well enough informed to agree with this. To paraphrase a meme: You might be legally correct, but you're an asshole.

liberte82 9y ago
No, it's literally your problem, if there are things happening with the data that are causing you problems.
- falcolas 9y ago
  If that problem leads the Average Joe to tell politicians to do something about it, is it really AJ's problem anymore? The problem and consequences to individuals will only really lead to directed consumerism and outrage. Which is going to matter more?
- dlwdlw 9y ago
  The libertarian attitude only works if you assume everyone is equal. Children are not. And because access to knowledge and wisdom (which includes when and how to seek out knowledge, usually passed on by educated parents.) huge portions of people can be left in a semi-childlike state. Tendency to violence, under-appreciation for exponentials, etc... The role of parental systems is to mitigate the issues of orphans who become disenfranchised. Entire races can be orphaned from traditional values of they were severed from their cultural root. (slaves) the elderly also often become orphaned and so are a big target for scams. Excessive and imposed "family" is just a cult but that doesn't mean family values don't at a role in functioning society. There is a limit to individual ability.

908087 9y ago

I never signed up, yet I know Facebook has data about me anyway. How exactly did I "agree to this"?

andy_ppp 9y ago

This discussion was flagged marked as dead and knocked off the front page within a few minutes, is that normal? It seems strange that it’s no longer flagged or dead but still off the homepage. I find this to be the most damaging Facebook story on there so I worry about why it’s been removed when the discussion on here was interesting.

thisisit 9y ago

I have a Facebook account on which I have shared as little as possible. When I downloaded the data off the platform, it was completely empty which was no surprise. But, as it turned out my friends were not so lucky. All of them had my number saved. Some had my birthday. Quite a few had tagged me at my work location etc. So, even with efforts on my side to try and not share data, FB still has a profile on me. I find it hard to believe that there are lot of other platforms which can build such a cache of information about me, without me giving them explicit permission.

liberte82 9y ago

Remember when people laughed off Stallman as an extremist?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Balgair 9y ago

Anecdote: I was in Australia once and idly flipping through the hotel room's TV channels. I happened upon the Aussie Dateline, their version a popular US program on NBC that does some alright in-depth reporting on special issues. As an aside: one thing to remember about Australia compared to the US is that the Aussie version of things is like the US version, but in a fun house mirror. Everything is called the same, and is similar, but is just different enough as to give you 'category-vertigo'. The Aussie BBQ is a BBQ, but not really anything like a US BBQ. The Aussie seafood is seafood, but not really anything like US seafood. Aussie radio is radio, but not really anything like US radio. ETC. The Aussie version of Dateline that I stumbled upon was taking an in-depth look at a rancher in QLD and his issues with an oil/gas company. The rancher quit school at 16 (generally, a wonderful idea in commonwealth countries that the US should import) and became a boxer, then a car salesman, then a rodeo bronco rider, and then a cattle rancher with a wife and 3 young kids. Very importantly, neither he nor his wife could read. His contracts would be signed with an 'X' and a handshake. From what I could tell about QLD law, every contract must be read to a person that cannot read, and a sense of 'good faith' must exist between both parties. Well, a US oil/gas company came to him and found the black gold under his ranch. They set up many pump-jacks and ruined his grazing land. He quickly went bankrupt as all his cattle died. So he went to court over it. The US company put their hand to their face and basically went: 'Nee-neer-Nee-Neer-Nee-neer, you signed the contract! Ha!' The contract was written in a very favorable way to the company and screwed the rancher. So much was the stress, that the wife tried to commit suicide. Watching that portion of the interview was heartbreaking. Here was a tough, sunburnt man, brought to tears over finding his wife just about to commit the act. But QLD law was very favorable to the man. The contract was voided as it was created in bad faith and the US company was made to pay to remove the jacks and pay the rancher back for the damages. The Dateline piece was mostly following their attempts in international courts to get the company to pay up, as they had fled Australia in order to skip out on the payment. Here's my point: What the Zuck is doing, by saying: 'Nee-neer-Nee-Neer-Nee-neer, you signed the contract! Ha!', is a very American thing to do; and it won't stand up in many other countries, or even his own. Just because a contract was clicked on and agreed to in bad faith, doesn't mean that he will be able to hide behind that shield forever. Even if you have a piece of paper that says 'I can be an asshole', and everyone has signed it, doesn't mean that you can be an asshole forever. People don't like assholes and they will get lawyers/barristers in to express that feeling.

diek00 9y ago

Mark wants to surpass $100 billion in lost stock, like a champ