4 ms·

But taking your logic for whether or not that's ok, then the whole Cambridge Analytica scandal with Facebook should also be considered "cut-and-dry," since the

But taking your logic for whether or not that's ok, then the whole Cambridge Analytica scandal with Facebook should also be considered "cut-and-dry," since the terms and conditions users were accepting meant that the user gives explicit permission to read metadata (read: demographic data) of the user. TBH I'm not sure I agree with you either way, but if that's what you're arguing, then let's give equal treatment where it's due.

scarface74 8y ago
There is a difference in intent. If I give a third party explicit permission to access my email, I am doing it to benefit me. It’s not behind some blob of text in a Eula. Google says specifically, you are giving this app the right to read your email. If Google didn’t have that functionality and the same user gave the third party access by giving them thier username and password. The third party extension still has access to your email and now they have an unencrypted password that the user is probably using in other places. I’m assuming that there is also some type of method to ensure the token is only being used by a certain extension so that if the token is leaked it can’t be used by another app.