19 ms·

Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends

792 points by sna1l 8y ago

40acres 8y ago
Can't wait the apology commercial.
- jsgo 8y ago
  maybe another Zuckerberg nationwide tour that he'll chronicle on Facebook if we're lucky.
- jonathankoren 8y ago
  I find the Wells Fargo commercials absurdly self-serving. I can only imagine what the makers of “Chairs”[0] would conjure up. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSzoDPptYNA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSzoDPptYNA
jfasi 8y ago
This paints Facebook’s recent marketing campaign in a new light. Here I was thinking we were dealing with a company finally that decided to get their act together and turn themselves around, when in reality it was actually just Facebook trying to whitewash their reputation ahead of all the horrible abuses they knew were about to be exposed.
- smt88 8y ago
  Until the top execs are removed, don't believe there's a sincere desire to change at Facebook
radicaldreamer 8y ago
Nothing will change Facebook's behavior except heavy regulation or the threat of a breakup.
- Iv 8y ago
  And no one should be surprised by this either. Violating privacy is their business model. As long as it is legal it would be stupid for them to change it. As a former French banker (now standup comedian) once said: "Hoping to regulate companies by asking nicely is like going to the prostitutes with a flower bouquet"
- gboudrias 8y ago
  Honestly the only way might be American regulation specifically targeting Facebook. And the next player might be just as insidious. It would be extremely hard to avoid this result without a dramatic shift in public opinion and frankly culture.
knoepfle 8y ago
What is this describing? First-party apps with Facebook integration and/or OS features connecting to Facebook? The leakage of Facebook information onto MS/Apple/Blackberry servers would be concerning, but having Microsoft software connect to Facebook on a user's device sounds harmless (to the extent we trust MS/Apple/Blackberry software to not leak information so accessed). Right now I'm giving Apple similar access to every single communication I make through my computer, to my bank accounts and health records, to all the work I do for my employer. This distinction wasn't made clear in the story (or I can't read) and it's an important one. Privacy is complicated enough already.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  Yes, I didn't quite understand that. Apple had this to say: > An Apple spokesman said the company relied on private access to Facebook data for features that enabled users to post photos to the social network without opening the Facebook app, among other things. So is this like what connecting your Facebook account in Settings does? Allow you share pictures through the share sheet in Photos or whatever? What does Apple get to see, and what stays on the device?
  - GeekyBear 8y ago
    >is this like what connecting your Facebook account in Settings does? It depends on the platform. On iOS you could post various types of information to Facebook, and you could sync Facebook contact and calendar data to the local device. https://www.cnet.com/how-to/understanding-facebook-integration-on-ios-6/ https://www.cnet.com/how-to/understanding-facebook-integrati... Aside from letting you share information and sync Facebook contacts and calendars, Windows Phone 7, for instance, pulled in a lot more data to populate it's People hub. >For all intents and purposes the People hub is the Facebook app for Windows Phone 7. If you’ve supplied your Facebook login, the default “what’s new” tab will serve as your news feed. https://www.anandtech.com/show/3982/windows-phone-7-review/7 https://www.anandtech.com/show/3982/windows-phone-7-review/7
    - reaperducer 8y ago
jumelles 8y ago
Here we go again... it feel like there's no way to break out of this cycle where companies routinely go unpunished for bad behavior. Facebook, Equifax, Wells Fargo...
- randycupertino 8y ago
  "We're sorry!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15HTd4Um1m4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15HTd4Um1m4
  - sbr464 8y ago
    This
- obelix_ 8y ago
  China just executes the CEO. Mindless ambition. Mindless consequences.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    I hope you're not trying to say that's a better solution.
    - obelix_ 8y ago
      It probably is, given the type of characters proped up by the attention economy. China hasn't produced a Trump yet. Meanwhile the US has laid the foundation with the attention economy (that props up people with the largest view/retweet/like count) to produce an entire crop of Trump type "leaders" in every sphere of life from the corporate world, to the army, to academia, to the media etc etc. The ground has been prepared and the seeds have been planted. Look around. What is going to prevent their rise? Regulators? Zuckerberg?
  - mamon 8y ago
    So China has redefined CEO to mean: "Chief Executable Officer" :)
parvenu74 8y ago
> "In interviews, Facebook officials defended the data sharing as consistent with its privacy policies..." Facebook's EULA pretty much gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want with the data you've provided them. Of course, who actually reads EULAs or cares about privacy anymore?
jsgo 8y ago
Well, if you want to have your social network app preinstalled on a lot of phones, I guess there's either paying for it or offering up your users. iPhone doesn't have it preinstalled, no, but if memory serves, there were integrations built in. At least for a while. Why would they need this data though, really? Once you've bought the device, they could get at the interesting data outright if so inclined?
arbie 8y ago
Why this is shocking, or even news? When you create and use a Facebook account (or when a shadow profile is created for you), Facebook has (and has always had) the right to share anything and everything you publish on their platform with anyone they have a legal responsibility to (e.g., law enforcement) or commercial agreement with (e.g., advertisers). All Facebook content is essentially public and should be treated as such.
- PostOnce 8y ago
  We (society) made the rules, and we can change them. We have the power to make laws dictating how Facebook can use the data, regardless of what the contract says, regardless of their current "obligations", and regardless of how "public" this data might be. We made new laws about medical data -- we can make news laws about social data. That's what these stories are about -- things we can think about when drafting this new legislation, or interpreting old legislation. Our system of laws is not set in stone, we can update it, and we will--for better or worse.
  - spookthesunset 8y ago
    Why does the law need to change for this? Facebook should disclose what they do with your data, and that is about it. At that point, it is really up to you to decide if you want to play ball...
    - huntermeyer 8y ago
      I completely agree. I don't think there's any need for legislation. I think people should just realize the simple adage, "if a product is free, you're the product" or whatever. Our society needs to wise up.
    - PostOnce 8y ago
      So Facebook gets to make the rules? The law changes whenever we feel like it should, that's how democracy works. You say why should the laws change and why shouldn't we individually decide whether or not to play ball? For one thing, Facebook creates profiles of people who don't have accounts, but for another, and more importantly: Why should companies not be able to dump toxins in rivers? It's up to us whether we want to buy from that company and contribute to pollution -- or we could start up an EPA... which we did. Same deal with Facebook, sort of. Society can make whatever rules it wants, the only natural law is chaos, and of it we make order.
sigmar 8y ago
>The company continued to build new private APIs for device makers through 2014, spreading user data through tens of millions of mobile devices, game consoles, televisions and other systems outside Facebook’s direct control. So Facebook says "we don't sell data," but they are giving manufacturers access to data in exchange for being integrated/pre-installed on the device. How is that not "selling" data? Just because they aren't receiving cash?
- huntermeyer 8y ago
  They chose their words carefully.
- mtgx 8y ago
  IT's been obvious they do exactly that since the Zuckerberg hearings. But all of the politicians asking him questions seem to have missed that subtlety and kept asking about "selling data". Facebook hardly sells any data. It just shares it for free with a ton of partners (and without freely-given user consent).
  - infinitismal8 8y ago
    Every instance of third parties accessing user data has been with user consent.
- makomk 8y ago
  They're not giving manufacturers access to data in exchange for being integrated/pre-installed on the device; they're giving those manufacturers' apps access to data because they need that access in order to be able to present that data to the users who are accessing Facebook through those apps. It's not a quid pro quo, it's something that's fundamentally necessary for the apps in question to actually allow users to interact with Facebook through them.
  - sigmar 8y ago
    That might have been true in certain cases, but the article makes it clear there were other situations: >Facebook acknowledged that some partners did store users’ data — including friends’ data — on their own servers. A Facebook official said that regardless of where the data was kept, it was governed by strict agreements between the companies. Furthermore, why would they be putting an end to all these "partnerships" if they were "fundamentally necessary for the app"? Manufacturers can turn to the normal api that any other app dev uses.
dillondoyle 8y ago
I would love to see someone with an old BlackBerry write up whether this uses a unique endpoint (different from public api) especially to see if it would be possible to 'spoof' a BB device to get the data.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
jimjimjim 8y ago
they haven't changed. they will not change. why should they change. this is their normal. they are rotten to the core.
graysonk 8y ago
I mocked up a new Facebook apology ad: https://i.imgur.com/EWDJjwx.jpg https://i.imgur.com/EWDJjwx.jpg Let me know if marketing wants to license it.
newscracker 8y ago
I for one do not expect Facebook to change much unless there's a big shakeup from the top, including removing Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg and others. What they have shown repeatedly is contempt for their users in the guise of apologies and remediations that go nowhere. Since such a shakeup is unlikely to happen, the other thing that could happen is a breaking up of the company, which I'm guessing (this is not a prediction) will happen in a couple of years. To start with, Instagram and WhatsApp would have to get unwound from this mess by becoming individual and unrelated services. I don't have a lot of hope on social media platforms respecting user privacy and avoid massive data collection and/or sharing. Privacy in today's world is for the privileged people, in various ways.
- strooper 8y ago
  Facebook will not be the same without the masterminds (Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg and others). Practically, the business there is all about finding monetary value of the user data. Whether very few of us like that or not, we keep going back to using Facebook anyway, how (long) can we avoid the platform where our family and friends (and billions of other mindless users) are?
- marticode 8y ago
  I don't believe there is much synergies between FB and Instead anyway, and even less so with WhatsApp which seemed to be have been bought out strictly to stop it from growing into its own social network. But I don't see the US ever breaking up FB in the coming decade, as the agenda is clearly not to fight monopolies and trusts.
  - newscracker 8y ago
    Any breakup, if it were to happen, would be likely to be triggered mainly by the EU, IMO. For all the complexities that EU regulations sometimes bring in, I see the EU as the only hope in such cases.
    - johnchristopher 8y ago
paulie_a 8y ago
Shooooooooocking. This getting pathetic. Personally I am using Facebook less and less and attempting to block it as much as possible.
- choward 8y ago
  I think it's pathetic when people complain about something and continue to use it. That's why companies are allowed to get away with so much bs.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
seorphates 8y ago
"Facebook Gave..." Well, that's like problem number 15. Number one is to look at what you're giving to facebook. Number 2 is to look at how much control you have over the intimacy of your own life and those around you, using or not. Number 3 might be to look at how many phones/devices you can root, rip and reset (I mean, c'mon, the personal data sink on a phone is enormous and most have little to no say about what can be on it and when much less port and comms control). Number 4 is maybe that any middlin' IQ ass with a badge or a note with some letterhead can scoop your kit. (See Number 1.) Number 5 - Who makes the rules? (Don't think too hard on it, please.) Et cetera. Facebook is easy. Fasebook is sleezy. Facebook is free. So? I think I'll trust my peers well before I trust any piece of must-have with a logo that gives you only tactile controls, at best. The masses do not choose wisely. (See Number 5.) If you do the sharing then you need to do the caring. Button it up and bring it down. Believe it or not your likes are your own and if you don't like what they're doing now then shut it down. I know it's easier said than done for some but the keys to the kingdom are in corporate hands now. Good luck.
hublott 8y ago
Response from FB: "Why We Disagree with the NYT" https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/06/why-we-disagree-with-the-nyt/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/06/why-we-disagree-with-th...
- mlb_hn 8y ago
  Agree with FB on this one. The privacy issue with 3rd party developers was that friend data was sent to the 3rd party developer databases. Here, the data just stays on the device. The way the article is titled can make it look like the device makers actually got to make their own database of Facebook users. Edit: I read it again, the article does say "Facebook acknowledged that some partners did store users’ data — including friends’ data — on their own servers," but they don't follow up on that at all, they go back to messing with a BlackBerry. That's the big question.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Once an app has particular data, there is nothing FB can do to prevent it from uploading that data wherever. It would be difficult for Google or Apple to prevent that, and they control the platform. With enough apps, it is a certainty that this happened.
    - damnyou 8y ago
      Have you heard of the power of legally enforceable contracts? Lots of things aren't technically impossible but are forbidden by the law or by a contract. It's one of the ways modern societies function, check it out!
      - philipwhiuk 8y ago
        Have you heard of the power of contracts that have never actually been to court. It turns out many of them aren't legally enforceable. It's one of the ways modern society is dysfunctional. Check it out: http://www.ycombinator.com/legal/ http://www.ycombinator.com/legal/
      - 8y ago
arthurofbabylon 8y ago
Most notable pieces I took from the article: 1) Facebook does not see third parties (such as BlackBerry) as “third parties.” 2) Facebook told Congress that it disabled third party access to user data, but in actuality did not. My own strong interjection: Facebook’s competitive advantage is its disregard for ethics. Somehow, Zuckerberg has been able to convince a lot of smart people to do unethical things and build unethical technology, while the competitors have a harder time doing the same. This disregard for ethics has allowed Facebook to “grow at all costs.” Meanwhile, the more conscientious programmers and entrepreneurs (or at least those held more accountable) are busy wrangling with the real challenges and intricacies of civilization. (I personally prefer it that way - I like my work being tied to the well-being of society.)
- TAForObvReasons 8y ago
  > This disregard for ethics has allowed Facebook to “grow at all costs." There's a great phrase for this: "move fast and break things". When you believe it is ok to break small rules and norms, it becomes easier to break larger norms and ethics and rules. This philosophy took SV by storm, but at its core it's always been about disregarding things like laws and ethics, and now we are seeing the world that created.
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    You might think that that's a great phrase for it, but many other people don't interpret "move fast and break things" to mean what you think it means. I'm all for criticizing things that have gone wrong, but you're using an overly-broad brush.
    - tmalsburg2 8y ago
      I wish I could agree with you're more nuanced viewpoint, but seeing a whole industry making insane amounts of money based on abusive and deceptive business models suggests that there truely is a broader issue. Whether the underlying attitude is best describe by "move fast, break things" is debatable but we can't easily dismiss the idea.
aylmao 8y ago
"The company continued to build new private APIs for device makers through 2014" "Michael LaForgia, a New York Times reporter, used the Hub app on a BlackBerry Z10 to log into Facebook." -- this is a phone announced in 2013. I understand the concern with Facebook, but this article is presenting information from 4 years ago as if it's news.
- icebraining 8y ago
  It's news if people didn't know. Plus FB itself says that 60 companies used these APIs, and only 22 of those have ended as of today.
product50 8y ago
Now read this and do make sure you type the takeaways like you did for the NYTimes article above: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/06/why-we-disagree-with-the-nyt/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/06/why-we-disagree-with-th...
- icebraining 8y ago
  Doesn't actually deny any of the accusations, except maybe for the "access to friends' data not being shared" (for which the NYT should be criticized for being too vague - it's not clear how and why they "believed" it wasn't shared). I like the part "all these partnerships were built on a common interest" - tautologies always sound good. As for the only actual defense (the data agreements), it was already in the NYT story.
  - dhimes 8y ago
    And, Contrary to claims by the New York Times, friends’ information, like photos, was only accessible on devices when people made a decision to share their information with those friends. We are not aware of any abuse by these companies. Parsing: friends’ information, like photos, I have a friend named Tammy. Tammy has photos. was only accessible on devices Someone/thing can access these photos when people made a decision to share their information with those friends I decided to share information with Tammy. I now have access to her photos. I open some silly fb app. That app now has access to my friend Tammy's photos. According to this, Tammy may not even know that those photos have been compromised. She may have a son who is gay, but not out yet, and Tammy (being the understanding parent) is sharing with people she trusts. Now, unbeknownst to her, everything is out in the wild. This is the problem. We are not aware of any abuse by these companies. Were you looking? Did you care? Do you now?
    - makomk 8y ago
      So basically, your argument is that it's a dangerous attack on users' privacy for Facebook to allow users to view it through any app but their own, no matter how strict their contracts with the app developers, even if those developers are big companies like Microsoft with a lot to lose if they get caught doing something malicious? That it's an attack on gay rights for the Facebook walled garden to not be maximally strict and absolute in its grip on what software people can use to interact with their friends on it? Because that's what we're talking about here: apps that allow users to access their Facebook accounts and interact with their friends through them. Not shady Zynga games or information-mining quizzes, but alternatives to the official Facebook app that are only allowed to "provide versions of the Facebook experience" and are created by major device manufacturers. I'm curious how Facebook's continued willingness to allow web access to people's private information fits into all this too. After all, the user's web browser has access to all this dangerous personal information about their friends, it can certainly do all kinds of malicious things with it, and Facebook doesn't even have any kind of contractual relationship with the browser developers preventing this. Given how many shady browser extensions are out there this is certainly being abused right now. Should Facebook take down their web version too in the name of protecting gay children?
sparaker 8y ago
Stop using Facebook already ... it's a liar and deceiving social network.
yuliyp 8y ago
Alternatively worded: Facebook let RIM build Facebook for Blackberry.
zerostar07 8y ago
At which point can facebook start suing around for [slander/damages]? It's not like they did all this in secrecy , they were quite open about their platform with developers (which has helped developers warm up to a company that basically sells gossip). They never will of course, because they 'd be retroactively judged with today's standards. E.g. I find their unfair advantaging of the Obama campaigns a lot more troubling than this.
- pjc50 8y ago
  You can't sue for libel over accurately reported news? The bar for successful libel actions is extremely high in the US, as well.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
josefresco 8y ago
Facebook's old policy: Move fast and break things. Facebook's new policy: Move fast and deny everything. I'm only half-joking as I was surprised to see a Facebook rebuttal so quickly after an article like this. It seems a new strategy is in place, to not let these article fester. The problem is their response is devoid of actual content, or even actual rebuttals to the main points of the NYT article. Mainly that FB does not consider these vendors as "third-parties", and that friends data is accessed even when sharing is explicitly disabled.
- goalieca 8y ago
  > I'm only half-joking as I was surprised to see a Facebook rebuttal so quickly after an article like this >Market Cap: 561.740B https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/FB:US https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/FB:US Not surprised at all. Their business model depends on it on people uploading all of their personal information, thoughts, and feelings into the machine for analytical processing. If that trust/relationship dies, facebook dies with it.
  - laumars 8y ago
    I think the problem isn't so much a question of users trust in Facebook but rather users apathy with regards to their own privacy. I think most people are aware enough that they are the product - I just think they don't really care all that much.
- bradleyjg 8y ago
  I'm only half-joking as I was surprised to see a Facebook rebuttal so quickly after an article like this. Reputable journalists always seek comments when they write in depth about a person or company. There’s always at least some forewarning.
- mic47 8y ago
  > I was surprised to see a Facebook rebuttal so quickly after an article like this. Article contains Facebook's response, so they most likely read it before it was published. As far as I can tell, they probably didn't like the way reported interpreted things so they prepared at least part of the response before, so they can react when it will be published.
chiefalchemist 8y ago
Having read (been warned) "Chaos Monkeys" and "Dragnet Nation" this comes as no surprise. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/business/dealbook/review-chaos-monkeys-is-a-guide-to-the-spirit-of-silicon-valley.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/business/dealbook/revi... https://www.npr.org/books/titles/281981849/dragnet-nation-a-quest-for-privacy-security-and-freedom-in-a-world-of-relentless https://www.npr.org/books/titles/281981849/dragnet-nation-a-... Editorial: It's startling to me how outfits as reputable as NYT can time and again parrot a narative (e.g., FB is better than sliced bread), and then after the fact report on something that was right under their nose all along. Given the book review (link) above, it's as if they don't read their own publication. If I have to connect the dots myself then I'm going to stop reading - which I essentially did, many years ago. That said, SV has become the ultimate cult / religion. All those followers and zero heretics (i.e., whistleblowers). The irony that so many of the faithful champion the likes of Snowden et al is as funny as it is frightening.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- lasc4r 8y ago
  I've been reading studies about how facebook makes you depressed for years. Facebook may have had a golden age around the time of the Arab spring, is that the narrative you're referring to?
  - chiefalchemist 8y ago
    The two books mentioned are not new. One is specific to FB and reviewed in the NYT. The other might have been reviewed there as well. I did not dive that deep. The narrative is more about the MSM's alleged ignorance about FB's biz model, biz practices, etc. All those "journalist" and not a single question. The point is, this is old news. It borders on fake news. Real news boils down to two things. It's new. And it's relevant. Again, if the NYT - as a MSM outlet - is the best we got then we deserve better.
- yk 8y ago
  > Editorial: It's startling to me how outfits as reputable as NYT can time and again parrot a narative (e.g., FB is better than sliced bread), and then after the fact report on something that was right under their nose all along. That is almost completely a problem of the format of news articles, and that journalists have to write for a lowest common denominator. Take as an example from the NYT article: > Details of Facebook’s partnerships have emerged amid a reckoning in Silicon Valley over the volume of personal information collected on the internet and monetized by the tech industry. That, plus the next paragraph, is basically the entire context the NYT can give about a discussion about privacy that ranges from the inception of the Internet, spawned numerous NGOs like the EFF, etc. To present an sort of accurate picture, they would need a five volume work, so they have to rely on their readers already knowing something about internet privacy, and this is only meant as a reminder. The same problem seems to be with the entire article, the NYT seems to define "third party" as any party that is not Facebook, while Facebook defines "third party" as app developer. If I understand the NYT article, and Facebook's press release [0], the entire kerfuffle seems to be about an legacy api that can only be accessed by device makers, and it is entirely unclear if device makers have to exfiltrate the data from the individual devices, or if they have access to FB's databases. [1] The problem in the context of writing articles is, that one needs a quite technical article of the same length as this one to explain the lowest common denominator news reader what the difference between those two scenarios is. (Remember the average reader does not know what an api is, does not know what local or remote means in the context of handheld devices, does not know the difference between an OS and an app, and in general is not a programmer.) The quality of news gets even worse, because market pressures push newspapers like the NYT to conform to a certain set of newsworthy topics and to a specific framing of these topics. They have to adhere to a certain set of newsworthy topics, because people who talk with their co-workers about news don't really appreciate it, if their newspaper did not write anything about the topic. And they are pushed to a specific telling of these topics, because some of their readers are checking different newspapers and if they have incompatible framing of the news, then those readers will at some point conclude that the majority of newspapers is right. [0] https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/06/why-we-disagree-with-the-nyt/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/06/why-we-disagree-with-th... (h/t to whoever posted it in the comments) [1] Note, in the first case FB did constrain the ability of the device makers to access data on the phone, by getting them to sign TOS of the api. In the second case, FB is just lying about a breach of privacy for any reasonable definition of "third party."
11eleven 8y ago
It seems a lot of these tech companies' competitive edge is to ignore regulations and rules (other examples: Uber, AirBNB) to grow a massive user base 100x faster, as they hold onto the "scrappy startup" image. Once they have achieved their scale and network effects, they can just promise changes and do an apology tour in response to any regulatory or public backlash after it happens.
- cjhopman 8y ago
  > promise changes and do an apology tour in response to any regulatory or public backlash after it happens Except they aren't apologizing for this. And they shouldn't, it's a non-issue. The next article is going to be about how facebook shares user's data with third parties (chrome/firefox/opera/nefarious browser #3/etc) without any sort of agreement about how those third parties use the data.
hackinthebochs 8y ago
This and the discussion here is obnoxiously bad. Facebook gave some device makers special APIs to access authorized data. This is literally no different than a web API or scraping facebook HTML, just more streamlined. What you guys seem to be objecting to is that non-facebook code was able to interact with authorized user data. But that is a necessary feature of displaying data of any kind (unless facebook owns the entire software stack). This is a non-story. And HN's facebook derangement syndrome continues.
- zaroth 8y ago
  This is simply Facebook functionality being integrated into parts of the OS chrome. We trust our devices not to exfiltrate our data every second we are typing on them. Tightly integrating social features into a mobile OS is not third party access unless the device maker in exfiltrating the data for any purpose other than encrypted cloud backup.
- philipwhiuk 8y ago
  Should that data have been available via a web API or Facebook's HTML though?
  - hackinthebochs 8y ago
    >Should that data have been available via a web API or Facebook's HTML though There is no evidence that these APIs provided more data than a user had legitimate access to.
- tyrionsrke 8y ago
  You're conflating the issue of informed consent with access ubiquity. Simply because the data was gathered in a way not unlike most apps, doesn't make it a non-story. In fact, the lack of informed consent and the very misleading statements to Congress make it a huge story. User data is a commodity, and is worth far more than money. Considering how easily manipulated large portions of the Facebook community can be (e.g. Facebook mood studies, election-year propaganda, etc.), giving access like this to large tech companies - third parties - absolutely needs to be well regulated and come with the informed consent of it's user base. Not to mention that the policies around turning this data over to other parties -- namely law enforcement -- is different between most of these companies. The objection is not non-facebook code accessing facebook data. The objection is that, once again, powerful information is being traded and used as leverage to drive profit, with the intent of the buyer or receiver largely unclear, and the impact yet to be seen.
moedersmooiste 8y ago
When is Facebook giving full disclosure? Why do we have to find out like this? Facebook knows exactly which entities have been harvesting data. Just tell us already...
zaroth 8y ago
This appears to be an API to integrate Facebook chrome and functionality into a mobile OS UI; > “An Apple spokesman said the company relied on private access to Facebook data for features that enabled users to post photos to the social network without opening the Facebook app, among other things. Apple said its phones no longer had such access to Facebook as of last September. ... > Usher Lieberman, a BlackBerry spokesman, said in a statement that the company used Facebook data only to give its own customers access to their Facebook networks and messages. Mr. Lieberman said that the company “did not collect or mine the Facebook data of our customers,” adding that “BlackBerry has always been in the business of protecting, not monetizing, customer data.” > Microsoft entered a partnership with Facebook in 2008 that allowed Microsoft-powered devices to do things like add contacts and friends and receive notifications, according to a spokesman. He added that the data was stored locally on the phone and was not synced to Microsoft’s servers.” The story recounts how the BlackBerry Facebook view could... not surprisingly in any way... render your Facebook friends’ information which you are supposed to be able to access. But the NYT apparently thinks this is nefarious in some way. > “The Hub also requested — and received — data that Facebook’s policy appears to prohibit. Since 2015, Facebook has said that apps can request only the names of friends using the same app. But the BlackBerry app had access to all of the reporter’s Facebook friends and, for most of them, returned information such as user ID, birthday, work and education history and whether they were currently online. > The BlackBerry device was also able to retrieve identifying information for nearly 295,000 Facebook users. Most of them were second-degree Facebook friends of the reporter, or friends of friends.” ...How the hell else do you suppose the UI was rendering your Facebook Feed?! Maybe they thought BlackBerry used magic unicorns to render the Facebook UI components on their Hub view. If only there was a term to describe when media sites write a non-story to stir up fake controversy by smearing a popular target...
- cryptoz 8y ago
  Your entire post boils down to, "just trust the billionaires!" No, we won't. They are liars and cheaters, the lot of them, and we aren't going to trust them any more. They said in court "we didn't do that" so then you post it here that everything is okay, but I don't trust it. Not one bit. None of us do, or should, trust what those companies say. Mark Zuckerberg is a liar. The whole concept of, "We're doing the right thing with your data, just trust us" is ridiculous. He already called you and I and every single one of us a literal "dumb fuck" for trusting Facebook with the data. Mark Zuckerberg would be banned from HN for vile language if he were here. Clearly, we are not meant to trust him or any of them at their word. They lie and they know it. NO, zaroth, I do not believe a single part of any of the quotes you wrote. I don't believe them. We also know that Zuckerberg was intentionally misleading or lying in recent EU appearances. > How else was the UI rendering your Facebook Feed?! This kind of incredulous, "we must have Facebook on our phones, what else were we supposed to do?!" is silly. Facebook and these partners clearly overstepped their bounds. > But the NYT apparently thinks this is nefarious in some way. What? You then quoted the NYT listing a series of facts. Nowhere does the NYT say anything like nefarious or anything like that. You are making things up. > ... fake controversy ... Did you just call this whole thing fake? Like, the controversy itself? It's not fake..... This HN thread's existence proves the controversy is real. This stuff is not fake.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
matchagaucho 8y ago
The first 500M Facebook users were signing up for "the graph". The NY Times piece even goes so far as to illustrate this in diagrams. The graph was a phone book replacement... "white pages" for the Internet. It was only when public discourse on FB pivoted to religion and politics; both very private and personal topics; that sentiment pivoted towards privacy... and removing themselves from discoverability on the graph.
foobaw 8y ago
Worked at an OEM. We preloaded Facebook apps in our phones in exchange for user data. I can't provide more information on how the data was used but I would trust Facebook on this case.
- abawany 8y ago
  I always found it suspicious that on new (Android) phones with manufacturer ROM, the Facebook app was almost always uninstallable (system app).
DesiLurker 8y ago
just switch out of FB. you dont have to quit social media just find a more suitable network (I personally like ello). the crux of the issue is that they know they are a monopoly and wallstreet knows that too so these things will continue until there is a moderating force like people leaving. otherwise I doubt there'll be much happening to rectify these issues for they are the core of their business model not some happenstance things. btw mozilla created a FB jail thats fully open-sourced a few months ago. use that on FF and it should alleviate some desktop tracking. access here:https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/facebookcontainer/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/facebookcontainer/

792 points by sna1l 8y ago

40acres 8y ago

Can't wait the apology commercial.

jsgo 8y ago
maybe another Zuckerberg nationwide tour that he'll chronicle on Facebook if we're lucky.
jonathankoren 8y ago
I find the Wells Fargo commercials absurdly self-serving. I can only imagine what the makers of “Chairs”[0] would conjure up. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSzoDPptYNA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSzoDPptYNA

jfasi 8y ago

This paints Facebook’s recent marketing campaign in a new light. Here I was thinking we were dealing with a company finally that decided to get their act together and turn themselves around, when in reality it was actually just Facebook trying to whitewash their reputation ahead of all the horrible abuses they knew were about to be exposed.

smt88 8y ago
Until the top execs are removed, don't believe there's a sincere desire to change at Facebook

radicaldreamer 8y ago

Nothing will change Facebook's behavior except heavy regulation or the threat of a breakup.

Iv 8y ago
And no one should be surprised by this either. Violating privacy is their business model. As long as it is legal it would be stupid for them to change it. As a former French banker (now standup comedian) once said: "Hoping to regulate companies by asking nicely is like going to the prostitutes with a flower bouquet"
gboudrias 8y ago
Honestly the only way might be American regulation specifically targeting Facebook. And the next player might be just as insidious. It would be extremely hard to avoid this result without a dramatic shift in public opinion and frankly culture.

knoepfle 8y ago

What is this describing? First-party apps with Facebook integration and/or OS features connecting to Facebook? The leakage of Facebook information onto MS/Apple/Blackberry servers would be concerning, but having Microsoft software connect to Facebook on a user's device sounds harmless (to the extent we trust MS/Apple/Blackberry software to not leak information so accessed). Right now I'm giving Apple similar access to every single communication I make through my computer, to my bank accounts and health records, to all the work I do for my employer. This distinction wasn't made clear in the story (or I can't read) and it's an important one. Privacy is complicated enough already.

saagarjha 8y ago
Yes, I didn't quite understand that. Apple had this to say: > An Apple spokesman said the company relied on private access to Facebook data for features that enabled users to post photos to the social network without opening the Facebook app, among other things. So is this like what connecting your Facebook account in Settings does? Allow you share pictures through the share sheet in Photos or whatever? What does Apple get to see, and what stays on the device?
- GeekyBear 8y ago
  >is this like what connecting your Facebook account in Settings does? It depends on the platform. On iOS you could post various types of information to Facebook, and you could sync Facebook contact and calendar data to the local device. https://www.cnet.com/how-to/understanding-facebook-integration-on-ios-6/ https://www.cnet.com/how-to/understanding-facebook-integrati... Aside from letting you share information and sync Facebook contacts and calendars, Windows Phone 7, for instance, pulled in a lot more data to populate it's People hub. >For all intents and purposes the People hub is the Facebook app for Windows Phone 7. If you’ve supplied your Facebook login, the default “what’s new” tab will serve as your news feed. https://www.anandtech.com/show/3982/windows-phone-7-review/7 https://www.anandtech.com/show/3982/windows-phone-7-review/7
  - reaperducer 8y ago

jumelles 8y ago

Here we go again... it feel like there's no way to break out of this cycle where companies routinely go unpunished for bad behavior. Facebook, Equifax, Wells Fargo...

randycupertino 8y ago
"We're sorry!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15HTd4Um1m4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15HTd4Um1m4
- sbr464 8y ago
  This
obelix_ 8y ago
China just executes the CEO. Mindless ambition. Mindless consequences.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  I hope you're not trying to say that's a better solution.
  - obelix_ 8y ago
    It probably is, given the type of characters proped up by the attention economy. China hasn't produced a Trump yet. Meanwhile the US has laid the foundation with the attention economy (that props up people with the largest view/retweet/like count) to produce an entire crop of Trump type "leaders" in every sphere of life from the corporate world, to the army, to academia, to the media etc etc. The ground has been prepared and the seeds have been planted. Look around. What is going to prevent their rise? Regulators? Zuckerberg?
- mamon 8y ago
  So China has redefined CEO to mean: "Chief Executable Officer" :)

parvenu74 8y ago

> "In interviews, Facebook officials defended the data sharing as consistent with its privacy policies..." Facebook's EULA pretty much gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want with the data you've provided them. Of course, who actually reads EULAs or cares about privacy anymore?

jsgo 8y ago

Well, if you want to have your social network app preinstalled on a lot of phones, I guess there's either paying for it or offering up your users. iPhone doesn't have it preinstalled, no, but if memory serves, there were integrations built in. At least for a while. Why would they need this data though, really? Once you've bought the device, they could get at the interesting data outright if so inclined?

arbie 8y ago

Why this is shocking, or even news? When you create and use a Facebook account (or when a shadow profile is created for you), Facebook has (and has always had) the right to share anything and everything you publish on their platform with anyone they have a legal responsibility to (e.g., law enforcement) or commercial agreement with (e.g., advertisers). All Facebook content is essentially public and should be treated as such.

PostOnce 8y ago
We (society) made the rules, and we can change them. We have the power to make laws dictating how Facebook can use the data, regardless of what the contract says, regardless of their current "obligations", and regardless of how "public" this data might be. We made new laws about medical data -- we can make news laws about social data. That's what these stories are about -- things we can think about when drafting this new legislation, or interpreting old legislation. Our system of laws is not set in stone, we can update it, and we will--for better or worse.
- spookthesunset 8y ago
  Why does the law need to change for this? Facebook should disclose what they do with your data, and that is about it. At that point, it is really up to you to decide if you want to play ball...
  - huntermeyer 8y ago
    I completely agree. I don't think there's any need for legislation. I think people should just realize the simple adage, "if a product is free, you're the product" or whatever. Our society needs to wise up.
  - PostOnce 8y ago
    So Facebook gets to make the rules? The law changes whenever we feel like it should, that's how democracy works. You say why should the laws change and why shouldn't we individually decide whether or not to play ball? For one thing, Facebook creates profiles of people who don't have accounts, but for another, and more importantly: Why should companies not be able to dump toxins in rivers? It's up to us whether we want to buy from that company and contribute to pollution -- or we could start up an EPA... which we did. Same deal with Facebook, sort of. Society can make whatever rules it wants, the only natural law is chaos, and of it we make order.

sigmar 8y ago

>The company continued to build new private APIs for device makers through 2014, spreading user data through tens of millions of mobile devices, game consoles, televisions and other systems outside Facebook’s direct control. So Facebook says "we don't sell data," but they are giving manufacturers access to data in exchange for being integrated/pre-installed on the device. How is that not "selling" data? Just because they aren't receiving cash?

huntermeyer 8y ago
They chose their words carefully.
mtgx 8y ago
IT's been obvious they do exactly that since the Zuckerberg hearings. But all of the politicians asking him questions seem to have missed that subtlety and kept asking about "selling data". Facebook hardly sells any data. It just shares it for free with a ton of partners (and without freely-given user consent).
- infinitismal8 8y ago
  Every instance of third parties accessing user data has been with user consent.
makomk 8y ago
They're not giving manufacturers access to data in exchange for being integrated/pre-installed on the device; they're giving those manufacturers' apps access to data because they need that access in order to be able to present that data to the users who are accessing Facebook through those apps. It's not a quid pro quo, it's something that's fundamentally necessary for the apps in question to actually allow users to interact with Facebook through them.
- sigmar 8y ago
  That might have been true in certain cases, but the article makes it clear there were other situations: >Facebook acknowledged that some partners did store users’ data — including friends’ data — on their own servers. A Facebook official said that regardless of where the data was kept, it was governed by strict agreements between the companies. Furthermore, why would they be putting an end to all these "partnerships" if they were "fundamentally necessary for the app"? Manufacturers can turn to the normal api that any other app dev uses.

dillondoyle 8y ago

I would love to see someone with an old BlackBerry write up whether this uses a unique endpoint (different from public api) especially to see if it would be possible to 'spoof' a BB device to get the data.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

jimjimjim 8y ago

they haven't changed. they will not change. why should they change. this is their normal. they are rotten to the core.

graysonk 8y ago

I mocked up a new Facebook apology ad: https://i.imgur.com/EWDJjwx.jpg https://i.imgur.com/EWDJjwx.jpg Let me know if marketing wants to license it.

newscracker 8y ago

I for one do not expect Facebook to change much unless there's a big shakeup from the top, including removing Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg and others. What they have shown repeatedly is contempt for their users in the guise of apologies and remediations that go nowhere. Since such a shakeup is unlikely to happen, the other thing that could happen is a breaking up of the company, which I'm guessing (this is not a prediction) will happen in a couple of years. To start with, Instagram and WhatsApp would have to get unwound from this mess by becoming individual and unrelated services. I don't have a lot of hope on social media platforms respecting user privacy and avoid massive data collection and/or sharing. Privacy in today's world is for the privileged people, in various ways.

strooper 8y ago
Facebook will not be the same without the masterminds (Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg and others). Practically, the business there is all about finding monetary value of the user data. Whether very few of us like that or not, we keep going back to using Facebook anyway, how (long) can we avoid the platform where our family and friends (and billions of other mindless users) are?
marticode 8y ago
I don't believe there is much synergies between FB and Instead anyway, and even less so with WhatsApp which seemed to be have been bought out strictly to stop it from growing into its own social network. But I don't see the US ever breaking up FB in the coming decade, as the agenda is clearly not to fight monopolies and trusts.
- newscracker 8y ago
  Any breakup, if it were to happen, would be likely to be triggered mainly by the EU, IMO. For all the complexities that EU regulations sometimes bring in, I see the EU as the only hope in such cases.
  - johnchristopher 8y ago

paulie_a 8y ago

Shooooooooocking. This getting pathetic. Personally I am using Facebook less and less and attempting to block it as much as possible.

choward 8y ago
I think it's pathetic when people complain about something and continue to use it. That's why companies are allowed to get away with so much bs.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

seorphates 8y ago

"Facebook Gave..." Well, that's like problem number 15. Number one is to look at what you're giving to facebook. Number 2 is to look at how much control you have over the intimacy of your own life and those around you, using or not. Number 3 might be to look at how many phones/devices you can root, rip and reset (I mean, c'mon, the personal data sink on a phone is enormous and most have little to no say about what can be on it and when much less port and comms control). Number 4 is maybe that any middlin' IQ ass with a badge or a note with some letterhead can scoop your kit. (See Number 1.) Number 5 - Who makes the rules? (Don't think too hard on it, please.) Et cetera. Facebook is easy. Fasebook is sleezy. Facebook is free. So? I think I'll trust my peers well before I trust any piece of must-have with a logo that gives you only tactile controls, at best. The masses do not choose wisely. (See Number 5.) If you do the sharing then you need to do the caring. Button it up and bring it down. Believe it or not your likes are your own and if you don't like what they're doing now then shut it down. I know it's easier said than done for some but the keys to the kingdom are in corporate hands now. Good luck.

hublott 8y ago

Response from FB: "Why We Disagree with the NYT" https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/06/why-we-disagree-with-the-nyt/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/06/why-we-disagree-with-th...

mlb_hn 8y ago
Agree with FB on this one. The privacy issue with 3rd party developers was that friend data was sent to the 3rd party developer databases. Here, the data just stays on the device. The way the article is titled can make it look like the device makers actually got to make their own database of Facebook users. Edit: I read it again, the article does say "Facebook acknowledged that some partners did store users’ data — including friends’ data — on their own servers," but they don't follow up on that at all, they go back to messing with a BlackBerry. That's the big question.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Once an app has particular data, there is nothing FB can do to prevent it from uploading that data wherever. It would be difficult for Google or Apple to prevent that, and they control the platform. With enough apps, it is a certainty that this happened.
  - damnyou 8y ago
    Have you heard of the power of legally enforceable contracts? Lots of things aren't technically impossible but are forbidden by the law or by a contract. It's one of the ways modern societies function, check it out!
    - philipwhiuk 8y ago
      Have you heard of the power of contracts that have never actually been to court. It turns out many of them aren't legally enforceable. It's one of the ways modern society is dysfunctional. Check it out: http://www.ycombinator.com/legal/ http://www.ycombinator.com/legal/
    - 8y ago

arthurofbabylon 8y ago

Most notable pieces I took from the article: 1) Facebook does not see third parties (such as BlackBerry) as “third parties.” 2) Facebook told Congress that it disabled third party access to user data, but in actuality did not. My own strong interjection: Facebook’s competitive advantage is its disregard for ethics. Somehow, Zuckerberg has been able to convince a lot of smart people to do unethical things and build unethical technology, while the competitors have a harder time doing the same. This disregard for ethics has allowed Facebook to “grow at all costs.” Meanwhile, the more conscientious programmers and entrepreneurs (or at least those held more accountable) are busy wrangling with the real challenges and intricacies of civilization. (I personally prefer it that way - I like my work being tied to the well-being of society.)

TAForObvReasons 8y ago
> This disregard for ethics has allowed Facebook to “grow at all costs." There's a great phrase for this: "move fast and break things". When you believe it is ok to break small rules and norms, it becomes easier to break larger norms and ethics and rules. This philosophy took SV by storm, but at its core it's always been about disregarding things like laws and ethics, and now we are seeing the world that created.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  You might think that that's a great phrase for it, but many other people don't interpret "move fast and break things" to mean what you think it means. I'm all for criticizing things that have gone wrong, but you're using an overly-broad brush.
  - tmalsburg2 8y ago
    I wish I could agree with you're more nuanced viewpoint, but seeing a whole industry making insane amounts of money based on abusive and deceptive business models suggests that there truely is a broader issue. Whether the underlying attitude is best describe by "move fast, break things" is debatable but we can't easily dismiss the idea.

aylmao 8y ago

"The company continued to build new private APIs for device makers through 2014" "Michael LaForgia, a New York Times reporter, used the Hub app on a BlackBerry Z10 to log into Facebook." -- this is a phone announced in 2013. I understand the concern with Facebook, but this article is presenting information from 4 years ago as if it's news.

icebraining 8y ago
It's news if people didn't know. Plus FB itself says that 60 companies used these APIs, and only 22 of those have ended as of today.

product50 8y ago

Now read this and do make sure you type the takeaways like you did for the NYTimes article above: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/06/why-we-disagree-with-the-nyt/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/06/why-we-disagree-with-th...

icebraining 8y ago
Doesn't actually deny any of the accusations, except maybe for the "access to friends' data not being shared" (for which the NYT should be criticized for being too vague - it's not clear how and why they "believed" it wasn't shared). I like the part "all these partnerships were built on a common interest" - tautologies always sound good. As for the only actual defense (the data agreements), it was already in the NYT story.
- dhimes 8y ago
  And, Contrary to claims by the New York Times, friends’ information, like photos, was only accessible on devices when people made a decision to share their information with those friends. We are not aware of any abuse by these companies. Parsing: friends’ information, like photos, I have a friend named Tammy. Tammy has photos. was only accessible on devices Someone/thing can access these photos when people made a decision to share their information with those friends I decided to share information with Tammy. I now have access to her photos. I open some silly fb app. That app now has access to my friend Tammy's photos. According to this, Tammy may not even know that those photos have been compromised. She may have a son who is gay, but not out yet, and Tammy (being the understanding parent) is sharing with people she trusts. Now, unbeknownst to her, everything is out in the wild. This is the problem. We are not aware of any abuse by these companies. Were you looking? Did you care? Do you now?
  - makomk 8y ago
    So basically, your argument is that it's a dangerous attack on users' privacy for Facebook to allow users to view it through any app but their own, no matter how strict their contracts with the app developers, even if those developers are big companies like Microsoft with a lot to lose if they get caught doing something malicious? That it's an attack on gay rights for the Facebook walled garden to not be maximally strict and absolute in its grip on what software people can use to interact with their friends on it? Because that's what we're talking about here: apps that allow users to access their Facebook accounts and interact with their friends through them. Not shady Zynga games or information-mining quizzes, but alternatives to the official Facebook app that are only allowed to "provide versions of the Facebook experience" and are created by major device manufacturers. I'm curious how Facebook's continued willingness to allow web access to people's private information fits into all this too. After all, the user's web browser has access to all this dangerous personal information about their friends, it can certainly do all kinds of malicious things with it, and Facebook doesn't even have any kind of contractual relationship with the browser developers preventing this. Given how many shady browser extensions are out there this is certainly being abused right now. Should Facebook take down their web version too in the name of protecting gay children?

sparaker 8y ago

Stop using Facebook already ... it's a liar and deceiving social network.

yuliyp 8y ago

Alternatively worded: Facebook let RIM build Facebook for Blackberry.

zerostar07 8y ago

At which point can facebook start suing around for [slander/damages]? It's not like they did all this in secrecy , they were quite open about their platform with developers (which has helped developers warm up to a company that basically sells gossip). They never will of course, because they 'd be retroactively judged with today's standards. E.g. I find their unfair advantaging of the Obama campaigns a lot more troubling than this.

pjc50 8y ago
You can't sue for libel over accurately reported news? The bar for successful libel actions is extremely high in the US, as well.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

josefresco 8y ago

Facebook's old policy: Move fast and break things. Facebook's new policy: Move fast and deny everything. I'm only half-joking as I was surprised to see a Facebook rebuttal so quickly after an article like this. It seems a new strategy is in place, to not let these article fester. The problem is their response is devoid of actual content, or even actual rebuttals to the main points of the NYT article. Mainly that FB does not consider these vendors as "third-parties", and that friends data is accessed even when sharing is explicitly disabled.

goalieca 8y ago
> I'm only half-joking as I was surprised to see a Facebook rebuttal so quickly after an article like this >Market Cap: 561.740B https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/FB:US https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/FB:US Not surprised at all. Their business model depends on it on people uploading all of their personal information, thoughts, and feelings into the machine for analytical processing. If that trust/relationship dies, facebook dies with it.
- laumars 8y ago
  I think the problem isn't so much a question of users trust in Facebook but rather users apathy with regards to their own privacy. I think most people are aware enough that they are the product - I just think they don't really care all that much.
bradleyjg 8y ago
I'm only half-joking as I was surprised to see a Facebook rebuttal so quickly after an article like this. Reputable journalists always seek comments when they write in depth about a person or company. There’s always at least some forewarning.
mic47 8y ago
> I was surprised to see a Facebook rebuttal so quickly after an article like this. Article contains Facebook's response, so they most likely read it before it was published. As far as I can tell, they probably didn't like the way reported interpreted things so they prepared at least part of the response before, so they can react when it will be published.

chiefalchemist 8y ago

Having read (been warned) "Chaos Monkeys" and "Dragnet Nation" this comes as no surprise. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/business/dealbook/review-chaos-monkeys-is-a-guide-to-the-spirit-of-silicon-valley.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/business/dealbook/revi... https://www.npr.org/books/titles/281981849/dragnet-nation-a-quest-for-privacy-security-and-freedom-in-a-world-of-relentless https://www.npr.org/books/titles/281981849/dragnet-nation-a-... Editorial: It's startling to me how outfits as reputable as NYT can time and again parrot a narative (e.g., FB is better than sliced bread), and then after the fact report on something that was right under their nose all along. Given the book review (link) above, it's as if they don't read their own publication. If I have to connect the dots myself then I'm going to stop reading - which I essentially did, many years ago. That said, SV has become the ultimate cult / religion. All those followers and zero heretics (i.e., whistleblowers). The irony that so many of the faithful champion the likes of Snowden et al is as funny as it is frightening.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lasc4r 8y ago
I've been reading studies about how facebook makes you depressed for years. Facebook may have had a golden age around the time of the Arab spring, is that the narrative you're referring to?
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  The two books mentioned are not new. One is specific to FB and reviewed in the NYT. The other might have been reviewed there as well. I did not dive that deep. The narrative is more about the MSM's alleged ignorance about FB's biz model, biz practices, etc. All those "journalist" and not a single question. The point is, this is old news. It borders on fake news. Real news boils down to two things. It's new. And it's relevant. Again, if the NYT - as a MSM outlet - is the best we got then we deserve better.
yk 8y ago
> Editorial: It's startling to me how outfits as reputable as NYT can time and again parrot a narative (e.g., FB is better than sliced bread), and then after the fact report on something that was right under their nose all along. That is almost completely a problem of the format of news articles, and that journalists have to write for a lowest common denominator. Take as an example from the NYT article: > Details of Facebook’s partnerships have emerged amid a reckoning in Silicon Valley over the volume of personal information collected on the internet and monetized by the tech industry. That, plus the next paragraph, is basically the entire context the NYT can give about a discussion about privacy that ranges from the inception of the Internet, spawned numerous NGOs like the EFF, etc. To present an sort of accurate picture, they would need a five volume work, so they have to rely on their readers already knowing something about internet privacy, and this is only meant as a reminder. The same problem seems to be with the entire article, the NYT seems to define "third party" as any party that is not Facebook, while Facebook defines "third party" as app developer. If I understand the NYT article, and Facebook's press release [0], the entire kerfuffle seems to be about an legacy api that can only be accessed by device makers, and it is entirely unclear if device makers have to exfiltrate the data from the individual devices, or if they have access to FB's databases. [1] The problem in the context of writing articles is, that one needs a quite technical article of the same length as this one to explain the lowest common denominator news reader what the difference between those two scenarios is. (Remember the average reader does not know what an api is, does not know what local or remote means in the context of handheld devices, does not know the difference between an OS and an app, and in general is not a programmer.) The quality of news gets even worse, because market pressures push newspapers like the NYT to conform to a certain set of newsworthy topics and to a specific framing of these topics. They have to adhere to a certain set of newsworthy topics, because people who talk with their co-workers about news don't really appreciate it, if their newspaper did not write anything about the topic. And they are pushed to a specific telling of these topics, because some of their readers are checking different newspapers and if they have incompatible framing of the news, then those readers will at some point conclude that the majority of newspapers is right. [0] https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/06/why-we-disagree-with-the-nyt/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/06/why-we-disagree-with-th... (h/t to whoever posted it in the comments) [1] Note, in the first case FB did constrain the ability of the device makers to access data on the phone, by getting them to sign TOS of the api. In the second case, FB is just lying about a breach of privacy for any reasonable definition of "third party."

11eleven 8y ago

It seems a lot of these tech companies' competitive edge is to ignore regulations and rules (other examples: Uber, AirBNB) to grow a massive user base 100x faster, as they hold onto the "scrappy startup" image. Once they have achieved their scale and network effects, they can just promise changes and do an apology tour in response to any regulatory or public backlash after it happens.

cjhopman 8y ago
> promise changes and do an apology tour in response to any regulatory or public backlash after it happens Except they aren't apologizing for this. And they shouldn't, it's a non-issue. The next article is going to be about how facebook shares user's data with third parties (chrome/firefox/opera/nefarious browser #3/etc) without any sort of agreement about how those third parties use the data.

hackinthebochs 8y ago

This and the discussion here is obnoxiously bad. Facebook gave some device makers special APIs to access authorized data. This is literally no different than a web API or scraping facebook HTML, just more streamlined. What you guys seem to be objecting to is that non-facebook code was able to interact with authorized user data. But that is a necessary feature of displaying data of any kind (unless facebook owns the entire software stack). This is a non-story. And HN's facebook derangement syndrome continues.

zaroth 8y ago
This is simply Facebook functionality being integrated into parts of the OS chrome. We trust our devices not to exfiltrate our data every second we are typing on them. Tightly integrating social features into a mobile OS is not third party access unless the device maker in exfiltrating the data for any purpose other than encrypted cloud backup.
philipwhiuk 8y ago
Should that data have been available via a web API or Facebook's HTML though?
- hackinthebochs 8y ago
  >Should that data have been available via a web API or Facebook's HTML though There is no evidence that these APIs provided more data than a user had legitimate access to.
tyrionsrke 8y ago
You're conflating the issue of informed consent with access ubiquity. Simply because the data was gathered in a way not unlike most apps, doesn't make it a non-story. In fact, the lack of informed consent and the very misleading statements to Congress make it a huge story. User data is a commodity, and is worth far more than money. Considering how easily manipulated large portions of the Facebook community can be (e.g. Facebook mood studies, election-year propaganda, etc.), giving access like this to large tech companies - third parties - absolutely needs to be well regulated and come with the informed consent of it's user base. Not to mention that the policies around turning this data over to other parties -- namely law enforcement -- is different between most of these companies. The objection is not non-facebook code accessing facebook data. The objection is that, once again, powerful information is being traded and used as leverage to drive profit, with the intent of the buyer or receiver largely unclear, and the impact yet to be seen.

moedersmooiste 8y ago

When is Facebook giving full disclosure? Why do we have to find out like this? Facebook knows exactly which entities have been harvesting data. Just tell us already...

zaroth 8y ago

This appears to be an API to integrate Facebook chrome and functionality into a mobile OS UI; > “An Apple spokesman said the company relied on private access to Facebook data for features that enabled users to post photos to the social network without opening the Facebook app, among other things. Apple said its phones no longer had such access to Facebook as of last September. ... > Usher Lieberman, a BlackBerry spokesman, said in a statement that the company used Facebook data only to give its own customers access to their Facebook networks and messages. Mr. Lieberman said that the company “did not collect or mine the Facebook data of our customers,” adding that “BlackBerry has always been in the business of protecting, not monetizing, customer data.” > Microsoft entered a partnership with Facebook in 2008 that allowed Microsoft-powered devices to do things like add contacts and friends and receive notifications, according to a spokesman. He added that the data was stored locally on the phone and was not synced to Microsoft’s servers.” The story recounts how the BlackBerry Facebook view could... not surprisingly in any way... render your Facebook friends’ information which you are supposed to be able to access. But the NYT apparently thinks this is nefarious in some way. > “The Hub also requested — and received — data that Facebook’s policy appears to prohibit. Since 2015, Facebook has said that apps can request only the names of friends using the same app. But the BlackBerry app had access to all of the reporter’s Facebook friends and, for most of them, returned information such as user ID, birthday, work and education history and whether they were currently online. > The BlackBerry device was also able to retrieve identifying information for nearly 295,000 Facebook users. Most of them were second-degree Facebook friends of the reporter, or friends of friends.” ...How the hell else do you suppose the UI was rendering your Facebook Feed?! Maybe they thought BlackBerry used magic unicorns to render the Facebook UI components on their Hub view. If only there was a term to describe when media sites write a non-story to stir up fake controversy by smearing a popular target...

cryptoz 8y ago
Your entire post boils down to, "just trust the billionaires!" No, we won't. They are liars and cheaters, the lot of them, and we aren't going to trust them any more. They said in court "we didn't do that" so then you post it here that everything is okay, but I don't trust it. Not one bit. None of us do, or should, trust what those companies say. Mark Zuckerberg is a liar. The whole concept of, "We're doing the right thing with your data, just trust us" is ridiculous. He already called you and I and every single one of us a literal "dumb fuck" for trusting Facebook with the data. Mark Zuckerberg would be banned from HN for vile language if he were here. Clearly, we are not meant to trust him or any of them at their word. They lie and they know it. NO, zaroth, I do not believe a single part of any of the quotes you wrote. I don't believe them. We also know that Zuckerberg was intentionally misleading or lying in recent EU appearances. > How else was the UI rendering your Facebook Feed?! This kind of incredulous, "we must have Facebook on our phones, what else were we supposed to do?!" is silly. Facebook and these partners clearly overstepped their bounds. > But the NYT apparently thinks this is nefarious in some way. What? You then quoted the NYT listing a series of facts. Nowhere does the NYT say anything like nefarious or anything like that. You are making things up. > ... fake controversy ... Did you just call this whole thing fake? Like, the controversy itself? It's not fake..... This HN thread's existence proves the controversy is real. This stuff is not fake.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

matchagaucho 8y ago

The first 500M Facebook users were signing up for "the graph". The NY Times piece even goes so far as to illustrate this in diagrams. The graph was a phone book replacement... "white pages" for the Internet. It was only when public discourse on FB pivoted to religion and politics; both very private and personal topics; that sentiment pivoted towards privacy... and removing themselves from discoverability on the graph.

foobaw 8y ago

Worked at an OEM. We preloaded Facebook apps in our phones in exchange for user data. I can't provide more information on how the data was used but I would trust Facebook on this case.

abawany 8y ago
I always found it suspicious that on new (Android) phones with manufacturer ROM, the Facebook app was almost always uninstallable (system app).

DesiLurker 8y ago

just switch out of FB. you dont have to quit social media just find a more suitable network (I personally like ello). the crux of the issue is that they know they are a monopoly and wallstreet knows that too so these things will continue until there is a moderating force like people leaving. otherwise I doubt there'll be much happening to rectify these issues for they are the core of their business model not some happenstance things. btw mozilla created a FB jail thats fully open-sourced a few months ago. use that on FF and it should alleviate some desktop tracking. access here:https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/facebookcontainer/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/facebookcontainer/