3 ms·

>Yes the user agreed to grant some permissions so a quiz could be taken. You had to authorize the messages permission separately from all other permissions. I

>Yes the user agreed to grant some permissions so a quiz could be taken. You had to authorize the messages permission separately from all other permissions. If you didn't want your messages accessed, you simply declined that permission. This one's on the user, not on anybody else.

jfrankamp 9y ago
You're ignoring the 'reasonable person' argument which is important and forms a significant part of the legal system re: understanding contracts that you are signing. The reaction by the public and HN as a whole is perfectly justified. The permissions dialog is less interesting than the title of the app which wasn't "App to steal and repackage and sell your data you idiots!". In net, the app didn't tell the truth about itself, aided and abetted by Facebook's idiocy.
- downandout 9y ago
  The permissions dialog is less interesting than the title of the app which wasn't "App to steal and repackage and sell your data you idiots!". The Obama For America app stole data from about 4x the number of profiles that this app did - about 200 million people, less than 1 million of whom gave them any form of consent, much less informed consent, as was given here with the messages permission. Do you have an issue with that app’s title?
  - moorhosj 9y ago
    Where did OP claim they didn’t have an issue with the Obama for America app?
bigiain 9y ago
I strongly disagree - this one is on Facebook. For building a system that even allowed a "quiz" to ask for message permission in the first place. Everybody (and Facebook best of all) knows that users will click [Accept] or [I've read the 27 page T&Cs] or [I hereby give Cambridge Analytica my firstborn child] without even slowing down to consider any consequences - in return for another tiny dopamine fix.
- paulddraper 9y ago
  Sounds like both sides got what they wanted.
atwebb 9y ago
You are willfully ignoring the strongest point in my statement.

jfrankamp 9y ago

You're ignoring the 'reasonable person' argument which is important and forms a significant part of the legal system re: understanding contracts that you are signing. The reaction by the public and HN as a whole is perfectly justified. The permissions dialog is less interesting than the title of the app which wasn't "App to steal and repackage and sell your data you idiots!". In net, the app didn't tell the truth about itself, aided and abetted by Facebook's idiocy.

downandout 9y ago
The permissions dialog is less interesting than the title of the app which wasn't "App to steal and repackage and sell your data you idiots!". The Obama For America app stole data from about 4x the number of profiles that this app did - about 200 million people, less than 1 million of whom gave them any form of consent, much less informed consent, as was given here with the messages permission. Do you have an issue with that app’s title?
- moorhosj 9y ago
  Where did OP claim they didn’t have an issue with the Obama for America app?

bigiain 9y ago

I strongly disagree - this one is on Facebook. For building a system that even allowed a "quiz" to ask for message permission in the first place. Everybody (and Facebook best of all) knows that users will click [Accept] or [I've read the 27 page T&Cs] or [I hereby give Cambridge Analytica my firstborn child] without even slowing down to consider any consequences - in return for another tiny dopamine fix.

paulddraper 9y ago
Sounds like both sides got what they wanted.

atwebb 9y ago

You are willfully ignoring the strongest point in my statement.