15 ms·

As Facebook Raised a Privacy Wall, It Carved an Opening for Tech Giants

499 points by jumelles 8y ago

sampagu 8y ago
https://www.bollymeditube.com/2018/10/how-to-remove-blackheads.html https://www.bollymeditube.com/2018/10/how-to-remove-blackhea...
jumelles 8y ago
> The New York Times interviewed more than 60 people, including former employees of Facebook and its partners, former government officials and privacy advocates. > The Times also reviewed more than 270 pages of Facebook's internal documents and performed technical tests and analysis to monitor what information was being passed between Facebook and partner devices and websites.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> The social network allowed Microsoft’s Bing search engine to see the names of virtually all Facebook users’ friends without consent, the records show, and gave Netflix and Spotify the ability to read Facebook users’ private messages. > The social network permitted Amazon to obtain users’ names and contact information through their friends, and it let Yahoo view streams of friends’ posts as recently as this summer, despite public statements that it had stopped that type of sharing years earlier. The records the New York Times reviewed were "generated in 2017" and "some were still in effect this year." That means not only did these agreements cross through Facebook's representations to various governments, they also overlap with GDPR.
- cageface 8y ago
  I guess this sort of defeats the purpose of switching from Google search to Bing over privacy concerns.
  - 7dare 8y ago
    Does it still affect you if you don't connect your FB account? I wouldn't think so
    - zymhan 8y ago
      Advertisers can still figure out how who you are without linking an account. It may take them slightly longer, but the information is out there.
  - kevmo 8y ago
    I've been using DuckDuckGo as my default. I mostly only use google for news search now. No complaints.
  - MasterYoda 8y ago
    duckduckgo works really well. For some topics google is better, but for 95% ddg do the job as a day to day standard search engine. And those times you need google, it is very simple just to add !g bang to get the google search results. With ddg you get better privacy and dont end up in googles filter bubble. More should try it out.
- rachelbythebay 8y ago
  Is THAT what the Bing goalposts were on the graphs? Tons and tons of fatal errors when they’d come calling. I don’t think they were getting much. Looked like |______|. Then one day, no more. So odd.
- bad_user 8y ago
  >> "they also overlap with GDPR" Both Facebook and Google were hit with GDPR-related lawsuits since the first day of GDPR enforcement. Companies are being sued left and right by privacy advocates and by "ambulance chasers". Which is great IMO, I hope Facebook gets at least a big fine for this.
  - danieldk 8y ago
    A big fine is nice. But until some high-level executives go to jail, they will do it over and over again. A fine is just an operational cost.
yerich 8y ago
> The social network allowed Microsoft’s Bing search engine to see the names of virtually all Facebook users’ friends without consent, the records show, and gave Netflix and Spotify the ability to read Facebook users’ private messages. > The social network permitted Amazon to obtain users’ names and contact information through their friends, and it let Yahoo view streams of friends’ posts as recently as this summer, despite public statements that it had stopped that type of sharing years earlier. This information contrasts with a statement Facebook provided in 2018, stating that such data sharing partnerships ended at the end of 2015. That statement itself was correcting an earlier statement stating that such access had ended even earlier. From https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-shared-user-data-select-companies-after-cutting-others-n881631 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-shared-user-...: > Facebook shared personal information culled from its users' profiles with other companies after the date when executives have said the social network prevented third-party developers from gaining access to the data, the company confirmed Friday. > The companies had access to the data during a stretch of time in 2015 after Facebook had locked out most developers who build apps that work on its social network. Facebook gave select "whitelisted" companies extensions before they were also blocked from getting its users' personal information. > Those extensions expired before the end of 2015, Facebook said. The company believes the previously unreported extensions with a select group of companies is consistent with previous statements that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has made, including in testimony to Congress, about shielding its 2.2 billion users' personal information from third parties since 2015. > "Any new 'deals', as the Journal describes them, involved people's ability to share their broader friends' lists — not their friends' private information like photos or interests," Ime Archibong, Facebook's vice president of product partnerships, said in a written statement.
mindgam3 8y ago
“Among the revelations was that Facebook obtained data from multiple partners for a controversial friend-suggestion tool called “People You May Know.” The feature, introduced in 2008, continues even though some Facebook users have objected to it, unsettled by its knowledge of their real-world relationships. Gizmodo and other news outlets have reported cases of the tool’s recommending friend connections between patients of the same psychiatrist, estranged family members, and a harasser and his victim. Facebook, in turn, used contact lists from the partners, including Amazon, Yahoo and the Chinese company Huawei — which has been flagged as a security threat by American intelligence officials — to gain deeper insight into people’s relationships and suggest more connections, the records show.” Well, that explains some of the conspiracy-mongering that was so rampant around this feature. Facebook (probably) wasn’t secretly recording your phone calls etc. They didn’t need to - they were getting streams of data from other partners. “Facebook also allowed Spotify, Netflix and the Royal Bank of Canada to read, write and delete users’ private messages, and to see all participants on a thread” Uhhhh, excuse me?
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > Royal Bank of Canada to read, write and delete users’ private messages, and to see all participants on a thread There's a settlement out there for anyone with a Facebook account who was turned down for a loan by RBC. No chance RBC wants its dirty laundry aired in a Fair Housing suit.
  - stonecraftwolf 8y ago
    Why would RBC even expose themselves to this liability? What was the point? With every single one of these companies I am...baffled, that anyone thought this was a good idea, but in this situation especially it makes zero sense. All that liability for what possible upside?
    - 1999 8y ago
      I think this was intended to be a customer support channel and they had to be able to delete the messages containing bank info after a certain amount of time. I had read something about it, I don't think carte blanche access to users' messages was sought or given, it was just support conversations. I didn't use it so this is like my memory of 2nd hand info.
historynow 8y ago
It was only a few weeks ago that people were arguing that it was anti-competitive for Facebook not to share data with other companies.
- AlexandrB 8y ago
  It’s about control. If it’s my data, I should be able to give permission for other apps to access it - regardless of whether Facebook views them as a competitor. Likewise, I should be able to block access for a given third party - regardless of how much money such a “partnership” would generate for Facebook. So yes, it is anti-competitive for Facebook to block access against the explicit wishes of its users. But it’s also despicable to sell user data to whomever without asking permission first. It’s pretty obvious from Facebook’s actions that they consider it their data, not your data.
- BEEdwards 8y ago
  Opt in vs opt out, pretty clear distinction.
- matt4077 8y ago
  Intention is so central to judging actions in both the law and ethics generally, it’s bordering on willful ignorance to profess ignorance (recursion intended).
InclinedPlane 8y ago
Interesting. Let's see what the local "defend FB at all costs" group has to say about this.
BoiledCabbage 8y ago
It is absolutely obscene how much of a breach of trust and decency these are. Facebook still hasn't fully come clean because they knew they were doing unsavory activities and just wanted to not get caught and keep getting away with it.
- wmeredith 8y ago
  I’m sure Zuck will offer a heartfelt apology.
  - nathancahill 8y ago
    10 DO heartfelt_apology GOTO 10
    - throwaway6488 8y ago
      Zuckerberg isn't a robot - he's entitled, overconfident, and underappreciative of the depth or complexity of the world beyond his experience or the impact of his actions upon it. Further, he shows no hesitation in imposing his will on others despite those shortcomings, and is entrenched in his perspective and tactics rather than open to learning. More briefly - he's a jerk.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - doodliego 8y ago
    Hopefully from Federal prison with a life sentence. Literally billions of times he and his execs, managers, and engineers have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Federal Wiretap Act, and more.
    - alexis_fr 8y ago
      Facebook could be considered as a strategic military asset, as it is capable of quite accurately mapping people around the world. Relationships between people in Iran, same place same time, same IP, ghost profiles... If you were the CIA, wouldn’t you work on protecting/ preventing such people from having a trial?
catchmeifyoucan 8y ago
Whoa! This makes sense now. "and gave Netflix and Spotify the ability to read Facebook users’ private messages" When I watched 21 on Netflix, Facebook Messenger on my phone suggested to play blackjack, literally the hour after.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- gowld 8y ago
  That's the reverse direction.
  - why_only_15 8y ago
    All of these were data sharing agreements, they were two way. Samsung, for example, had access to Facebook and also gave Facebook contact info
dwd 8y ago
They never sold user data for cash, but the monerary value of what they would have gained in network effects would have had measurable value, or they would not have done it. Time to pay the piper!
AlexandrB 8y ago
> With most of the partnerships, Mr. Satterfield said, the F.T.C. agreement did not require the social network to secure users’ consent before sharing data because Facebook considered the partners extensions of itself — service providers that allowed users to interact with their Facebook friends. Wow, this seems like yet another contortion to get out of asking the user what they want.
- thinkloop 8y ago
  Dude, we are all one, connected through the universe, don't harsh the buzz with your pesky permissions.
ryanmccullagh 8y ago
Would MZ ever face criminal charges?
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > Would MZ ever face criminal charges? He's lied to Congress. He's lied to half of Europe. (Or blown them off.) He's knowingly directed the violation of a federal consent decree and several EU directives. He presides over a platform profiting from mass atrocities in multiple countries. There's plenty to go after him with. The only things protecting him are his standing and lack of unexpected criminality.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - pmarreck 8y ago
    Evidence that he's lied to those entities?
    - 18pfsmt 8y ago
      There is no evidence, just innuendo, raw emotion, and pure discounting of personal responsibility. Many seem to want all the perceived benefits of FB, but none of the costs. Just to be clear, I don't use, nor like FB.
- sneak 8y ago
  No. The laws under which he might possibly be charged are never applied to billionaires or those with sufficient connections in military or government. The rules for you and I are not the same rules for Zuckerberg or Clapper.
  - fdgsdfgsd 8y ago
    Don't forget to incl. Jeff. Epstein
erobbins 8y ago
I'm so glad I left that place. I always had concerns but I had no idea the greed and abuse of users was so entrenched. Working in infra you don't find out about this kind of stuff.
- pmarreck 8y ago
  It's fine for sharing publicly-palatable things with friends and family members. I wouldn't conduct anything on it that you'd care to keep secret, though.
NN88 8y ago
Great, the Kremlin has your data.
tlb 8y ago
A basic principle of PR is that you should trickle out good news, and get all the bad news out in one dump. Because when bad news trickles out, and the public reads a fresh bit of bad news every day, it does more damage. One wonders at Facebook's very passive strategy here. They're not controlling the narrative at all, and we're reading a fresh bit of bad news almost every day.
- rurp 8y ago
  One possible explanation is that they are sitting on so much potential bad news it would be a disaster to release all at once.
- quadrangle 8y ago
  Occam's Razor might suggest this interpretation: Facebook is as bad or worse a company as its strongest critics suggest. There's not some dump of bad news, there's horrific practices everywhere you look, so every investigation uncovers more bad stuff since it's the norm for the company rather than the exception…
- theNJR 8y ago
  Whoa, my AI Motivator instagram just posted that https://www.instagram.com/p/BrjhQ5UAoTa/ https://www.instagram.com/p/BrjhQ5UAoTa/
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- clomond 8y ago
  I don't think many of the employees at various levels understand the "bad news" part of this. Therefore, they can't plan appropriately. I don't think it is intentional but rather a function of most employees being in a weird corporate "filter bubble" with extra strong cool-aid being served on the daily.
  - warp_factor 8y ago
    I know a couple Facebook employees. It is actually very disturbing to see at what length they go to cover and find excuses for each of those breaches. Not a lot of the them are taking a step back. Echo chamber...
rhegart 8y ago
“Facebook also allowed Spotify, Netflix and the Royal Bank of Canada to read, write and delete users’ private messages, and to see all participants on a thread — privileges that appeared to go beyond what the companies needed to integrate Facebook into their systems, the records show.” Wow...that’s scary
puranjay 8y ago
Deleted my Facebook nearly 6 months back. Never missed it Deleted my Instagram three weeks back because my feed was 1 ad for every 3 posts. Haven't missed it. If I could only get rid of Whatsapp, I would never need to use anything from this awful company
- labster 8y ago
  Install Signal, tell your friends. Although I tried getting one friend to switch today, didn't work because of network size. I'm afraid our only alternative is to organize all our really cool stuff on Signal and get 'em with FOMO.
  - gvurrdon 8y ago
    It's never worked for me - the answer is always something along the lines of "oh no, I'd have to install another app, it's such a hassle". If only there were some means for people to use whatever apps they liked and for these to communicate with each other.
  - fdgsdfgsd 8y ago
    I got my immediate family and the friends I care for (3?) to switch. My family was easy. No pics of my daughter on any social network. "Y'all want pics? install Signal. If I catch you posting on FB, you're cut off" Once mom installed Signal, the rest followed. As to my friends, the ones I actually care for are privacy freaks like me - although they're not techies - and understood its importance.
cantthinkofone 8y ago
This sequence of exposes and revelations doesn't speak to Facebook's credibility. It would be one thing if it was just the incidents surrounding the 2016 elections, but the pattern in all these news reports seems to be that Facebook's design doesn't simply doesn't respect its users. Too many features and plugins Facebook has seem to be leaky in some respect. Messanger does not use default end-to-end encryption for whatever mysterious reason. If Facebook owns the endpoints, it can just as easily obtain the data for themselves before encrypting and submitting the message if it were enabled anyway. How could I have any faith Facebook doesn't collect messages intended to be sent in confidence if collecting them suits Facebook's purposes? I'm not sure however if Facebook's sketchiness is intentional or not. We have few examples of companies that were early movers in the inception days of the modern internet. And the decisions made early on prefigured everything that was to come. At this time I would look to other others for inspiration about the correct way to make use of a data jackpot. Facebook's own totally unrestricted laissez-faire mentality in the relentless pursuit and utilization of its data is undermining itself.
- firstplacelast 8y ago
  Based on the salaries at Facebook, I would hope it’s intentional. If not, what the hell are they paying top-of-industry salaries for?
ericzawo 8y ago
When is the FTC getting involved?
- acjohnson55 8y ago
  When a new administration shows up. Maybe that's not fair, but I just assume that very little in the form of corporate regulation is on the table right now.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
malloreon 8y ago
Question for the most of the people who read this who will still use fb/instagram/messenger all day, or even at all: is there something so bad that fb could do that would get you to stop? If so, what is it? Where is your red line? Or absent an alternative with fb's network effects, will you keep using their products regardless of the unseen costs you rack up?
- wolco 8y ago
  Start charging money.
  - shard972 8y ago
    That would be a good thing? In all seriousness, if companies actually had to pay for your data, suddenly their business models would flip and you would find that we would go from being the products to being the customers.
- logicchains 8y ago
  >will you keep using their products regardless of the unseen costs you rack up? Honest answer: my purchasing/social network data is worth extremely little to me, so I don't care who has it. And I don't have a problem with advertising; I prefer to allocate responsibility to individuals for their own decisions, so if somebody is influenced by an advertisement, if anybody is to be faulted then it's themselves, not the advertisement/advertiser.
- crocodiletears 8y ago
  I can't think of any concrete red-line that Facebook could cross. I've never been a techno-utopian, and the Snowden leaks were the catalyst that drove me to learn programming. I recall being in my early teens, when I went to create my (first) Facebook account. I mentioned it to my dad. He explicitly told me that whatever I did on Facebook would go to their servers, that whatever reached their servers was theirs, and that they would do whatever they wanted with that data regardless of whether you agreed to it or not. The whole reason I gave up and made an account was because my friends had already given the app their contact list, and the service already had my phone number. From day one I've treated online services like amoral, dangerous animals, and so far nothing these organizations have done has especially shocked me, though I have been impressed or surprised on occasion. My mantra is generally 'if I or the NSA could imagine it, private industry will attempt it'. I still get a lot of value out of my Facebook account. Facebook pages are a gateway to niche interest groups, social trends, and the political fringes that would otherwise be inaccessible to outsiders. Seeing the ads Facebook puts in my feed helps me to calibrate my mental model of how I'm being observed, who's sharing data with who, and how online services perceive me (I typically use ad-block, and only occasionally close it to check my ads). If I want to contact someone I've only met in passing, keep up with family and political bubbles, or do a bit of background investigation, Facebook's there for me. Accessing the service requires a bit of a faustian bargain. But by the time I joined, the country had already made it on my behalf, so I opted to reap the benefits of that bargain rather than just being social collateral. Facebook could scare me off the way Google Search did - by sanitizing its content feed to the degree Google's sanitized its search. But I'd still use Messenger, and any other useful service they come up with. But otherwise it'd have to become obsolete in the same way as MySpace.
discordance 8y ago
My surprise is not that Facebook did this, but that developers within Facebook built this privacy violating ecosystem without question or publicly voiced concern. You guys sold your family and friends out for RSUs.
EGreg 8y ago
How much more until we all start using end to end encryption? I don’t mean server to client. I mean clients have the keys and only the clients. Why are we relying on third parties to pretty please enforce access control?
koboll 8y ago
I'd love to hear a Facebook critic rebut this thread re: the article: https://twitter.com/_mades/status/1075228269845336064 https://twitter.com/_mades/status/1075228269845336064 What this seems to boil down to is a side channel for certain partners with looser technical controls but tighter monitoring of misuse, and no evidence that that tradeoff actually resulted in any misuse that couldn't have occurred through normal data access channels.
- smackfu 8y ago
  If you don’t trust Facebook to do the right thing, that thread is not much of a defense, since it just says they will police their partners.
  - Ajedi32 8y ago
    It also sounds like access to certain APIs was much more limited than the NYT article implied: > When you hear things like read/write access that access was only granted when the user gave permission. For example, if you share a Netflix link to messenger, the post is coming from Netflix. > If you're sharing using messenger, you're able to search who you're sharing with through Netflix. If you then delete the message within Netflix, it would delete on Facebook. Very similar to using Tweetdeck for Twitter - same permissions
  - koboll 8y ago
    It's not a matter of whether I trust them. It's a matter of whether any misuse of data actually occurred, or whether this is a lot of innuendo with no evidence that any harm was, or even could be, done.
randomacct3847 8y ago
It’s crazy that there ever is/was an endpoint to read a user’s private messages. What exactly would ever be a good use case for that where a user would knowingly agree to it.
- matt4077 8y ago
  A third-party app allowing you to chat, possibly using more than one network? C. F. email.
- pmarreck 8y ago
  Did you know that every single email you've ever sent was readable by every single mail delivery agent in between?
  - 18pfsmt 8y ago
    It is possible this random person on HN was using PGP, so I don't think it's fair to use "every single" verbiage as it is clearly hyperbole.
- pmiller2 8y ago
  Here’s one: I used to work for a company that made social media compliance software for financial companies. Agents/brokers/salespeople had to connect their FB accounts and agree to have their PMs monitored so the compliance department their home companies could monitor what they said. This was so the companies wouldn’t fall afoul of FINRA/SEC/etc. IIRC, we could see the agrnt’s half of the exchange only, and they were certainly informed of exactly what was going on. The software did other things, too, such as being able to post approved content on their behalf, but this was a core function. Their alternative was to not be able to use Facebook at all.
polskibus 8y ago
Does anyone know if described behavior violate GDPR?
rock_hard 8y ago
After reading facebooks response I am once again disappointed by the art of journalism we have to deal with these days :( Turns out NYT either doesn’t understand the technical details or doesn’t want to https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/12/facebooks-partners/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/12/facebooks-partners/
- pookieinc 8y ago
  While I'm also disappointed by many news organizations / journalists these days, NYT is not one of them. In fact, they are one of the few newspapers that are keeping larger entities in check and doing their job by reporting them. I've been continually impressed by NYT, specifically, for its care in ensuring the highest level of integrity. Mistakes do happen and as far as I know, they've been pretty good about apologizing for them. If it weren't for this linked article (much of which I learned a significant amount and was news to me), we wouldn't have had such a response from Facebook with further clarification on this topic. For example, did I know they were also passing my private messages to other entities? No. I also don't blame myself because they could've made it a lot more obvious that I was sharing such personal content with other third parties. Journalists have a tough job, but they should be commended when bringing to light articles like this.
  - porpoisely 8y ago
    For me, the nytimes and the big media companies are the biggest disappointments. Smaller and local media companies tend to be far more reliable and trustworthy than large corporations. And integrity isn't a word I'd associate with the nytimes or any major corporation for that matter. They are greedy self-serving entities with their own agenda, like every business. I do believe corporations like the NYTimes and facebook have accrued too much power and are corrupt and a destructive force in the country and the world. I think we need more competition in the traditional media and social media space. For all the talk about monopolies in tech, we talk too little about the monopolies in news and media along with every other industry from agriculture to banking. Also, Facebook is a symptom of a national ( or international ) economic system that applies to pretty much every major industry today. Too much consolidation and too little respect for privacy. Facebook is providing what every industry ( including the news industry ) wants. Information and data. And every industry is invading their own customers' privacy and selling data. Credit card and banks sell your data. The NYTimes sells your data ( after all they sell ads too ).
edhelas 8y ago
> Facebook empowered Apple to hide from Facebook users all indicators that its devices were asking for data. Apple devices also had access to the contact numbers and calendar entries of people who had changed their account settings to disable all sharing, the records show. > Apple officials said they were not aware that Facebook had granted its devices any special access. They added that any shared data remained on the devices and was not available to anyone other than the users. Any more information about that? I would be curious to know if we have actual proofs about those statements.
- Despegar 8y ago
  That's referring to the Facebook integration in iOS. There were similar integrations for Flickr, Vimeo and Twitter as well. These have been removed as of iOS 11. It would let you sync your contacts and add their Facebook profile pic to them, as well as post to Facebook using a system UI. Apparently this API gave Apple more permission than was needed for these features, but that Apple was unaware of it. https://www.macrumors.com/2017/06/05/facebook-twitter-integration-eliminated-ios-11/ https://www.macrumors.com/2017/06/05/facebook-twitter-integr...
a3n 8y ago
I guess we can change "I have nothing to hide" to "I have nothing hidden."
happppy 8y ago
Now I really doubt if whatsapp is secure, even though they say it has end-to-end encryption.
- temp123131123 8y ago
  its not secure. if you have facebook app and whatsapp installed. the whatsapp can share data with the facebook app and upload it to their servers. messages on your phone are not encrypted. they are only encrypted during sending.
  - happppy 8y ago
    Oh my goodness, I should just delete fb.
  - g45y45 8y ago
    Also, if you are on android and do a Gdrive backup, all the WA logs are in the clear on googles server. They will gladly pass these logs to authorities on with the appropriate paperwork.
  - robin_reala 8y ago
    Just Android, or with iOS too?
  - MrBra 8y ago
    A good workaround for Android is installing "Friendly" in place of official FB app. Not sure if there's an iOS version too.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bitxbit 8y ago
I am worried about how much access was given to Palantir.
NelsonMinar 8y ago
I always wonder about the engineers at Facebook who implemented a feature like this. Someone like me, more or less. Did they stop to wonder why they were being told to bypass user privacy preferences? Did they raise any internal questions about ethics? Did any of them consider becoming a whistleblower? Or perhaps everyone who works for Facebook is convinced this kind of data sharing is OK?
- gizmodo59 8y ago
  The question to ask is rather, how much money is OK to remain silent. Unfortunately for the majority it’s not in the millions. Almost any big corporation does some activity that are not strictly in the ethical norms. To me, strict laws must be passed and people must be held accountable to really see a change.
- squish78 8y ago
  Most likely why they aggressively hire college grads and keep the developer workforce young. I doubt they teach corporate ethics in any comp sci program.
  - foolrush 8y ago
    Ethics, labour, and politics are intertwined. A single parent risks blacklisting and imploding a means of income, for example. Markets regulate themselves to a profit driven “ethics” solution that reverberates.
  - ardy42 8y ago
    > I doubt they teach corporate ethics in any comp sci program. Actually, when I was in school, there actually was an extensive ethics module in one of the required courses, and I think it was required by an accreditation body or the ACM. It also felt like it was used to satisfy some kind of writing-intensive course requirement, since it consisted of banging out 10-page papers on various topics. Neither the professors nor the students took it very seriously because everyone was more interested in technology, not philosophy. It felt like it only existed to check-off a checkbox.
  - 8y ago
known 8y ago
Govt can regulate FB with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Card_Industry_Data_Security_Standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Card_Industry_Data_Sec...
robut_98765 8y ago
Why do people even speak to Zuckerberg about Facebook? Yes he is the CEO but he's also the Kellyanne Conway of Facebook pretty much.
patrickg_zill 8y ago
So now I understand how it is, that despite putting no personal data on my Instagram account, the Amazon ads I see when I browse Instagram are so very well targeted to me...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
aussieguy1234 8y ago
Where WhatsApp messages shared with Netflix and Spotify? They're owned by Facebook. I'll never use Facebook Messenger again
kofejnik 8y ago
What really bothers me, is that of all possible partners, they gave access to Yandex, and Yandex == FSB

499 points by jumelles 8y ago

https://www.bollymeditube.com/2018/10/how-to-remove-blackheads.html https://www.bollymeditube.com/2018/10/how-to-remove-blackhea...

jumelles 8y ago

> The New York Times interviewed more than 60 people, including former employees of Facebook and its partners, former government officials and privacy advocates. > The Times also reviewed more than 270 pages of Facebook's internal documents and performed technical tests and analysis to monitor what information was being passed between Facebook and partner devices and websites.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

cageface 8y ago
I guess this sort of defeats the purpose of switching from Google search to Bing over privacy concerns.
- 7dare 8y ago
  Does it still affect you if you don't connect your FB account? I wouldn't think so
  - zymhan 8y ago
    Advertisers can still figure out how who you are without linking an account. It may take them slightly longer, but the information is out there.
- kevmo 8y ago
  I've been using DuckDuckGo as my default. I mostly only use google for news search now. No complaints.
- MasterYoda 8y ago
  duckduckgo works really well. For some topics google is better, but for 95% ddg do the job as a day to day standard search engine. And those times you need google, it is very simple just to add !g bang to get the google search results. With ddg you get better privacy and dont end up in googles filter bubble. More should try it out.
rachelbythebay 8y ago
Is THAT what the Bing goalposts were on the graphs? Tons and tons of fatal errors when they’d come calling. I don’t think they were getting much. Looked like |______|. Then one day, no more. So odd.
bad_user 8y ago
>> "they also overlap with GDPR" Both Facebook and Google were hit with GDPR-related lawsuits since the first day of GDPR enforcement. Companies are being sued left and right by privacy advocates and by "ambulance chasers". Which is great IMO, I hope Facebook gets at least a big fine for this.
- danieldk 8y ago
  A big fine is nice. But until some high-level executives go to jail, they will do it over and over again. A fine is just an operational cost.

yerich 8y ago

> The social network allowed Microsoft’s Bing search engine to see the names of virtually all Facebook users’ friends without consent, the records show, and gave Netflix and Spotify the ability to read Facebook users’ private messages. > The social network permitted Amazon to obtain users’ names and contact information through their friends, and it let Yahoo view streams of friends’ posts as recently as this summer, despite public statements that it had stopped that type of sharing years earlier. This information contrasts with a statement Facebook provided in 2018, stating that such data sharing partnerships ended at the end of 2015. That statement itself was correcting an earlier statement stating that such access had ended even earlier. From https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-shared-user-data-select-companies-after-cutting-others-n881631 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-shared-user-...: > Facebook shared personal information culled from its users' profiles with other companies after the date when executives have said the social network prevented third-party developers from gaining access to the data, the company confirmed Friday. > The companies had access to the data during a stretch of time in 2015 after Facebook had locked out most developers who build apps that work on its social network. Facebook gave select "whitelisted" companies extensions before they were also blocked from getting its users' personal information. > Those extensions expired before the end of 2015, Facebook said. The company believes the previously unreported extensions with a select group of companies is consistent with previous statements that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has made, including in testimony to Congress, about shielding its 2.2 billion users' personal information from third parties since 2015. > "Any new 'deals', as the Journal describes them, involved people's ability to share their broader friends' lists — not their friends' private information like photos or interests," Ime Archibong, Facebook's vice president of product partnerships, said in a written statement.

mindgam3 8y ago

“Among the revelations was that Facebook obtained data from multiple partners for a controversial friend-suggestion tool called “People You May Know.” The feature, introduced in 2008, continues even though some Facebook users have objected to it, unsettled by its knowledge of their real-world relationships. Gizmodo and other news outlets have reported cases of the tool’s recommending friend connections between patients of the same psychiatrist, estranged family members, and a harasser and his victim. Facebook, in turn, used contact lists from the partners, including Amazon, Yahoo and the Chinese company Huawei — which has been flagged as a security threat by American intelligence officials — to gain deeper insight into people’s relationships and suggest more connections, the records show.” Well, that explains some of the conspiracy-mongering that was so rampant around this feature. Facebook (probably) wasn’t secretly recording your phone calls etc. They didn’t need to - they were getting streams of data from other partners. “Facebook also allowed Spotify, Netflix and the Royal Bank of Canada to read, write and delete users’ private messages, and to see all participants on a thread” Uhhhh, excuse me?

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Royal Bank of Canada to read, write and delete users’ private messages, and to see all participants on a thread There's a settlement out there for anyone with a Facebook account who was turned down for a loan by RBC. No chance RBC wants its dirty laundry aired in a Fair Housing suit.
- stonecraftwolf 8y ago
  Why would RBC even expose themselves to this liability? What was the point? With every single one of these companies I am...baffled, that anyone thought this was a good idea, but in this situation especially it makes zero sense. All that liability for what possible upside?
  - 1999 8y ago
    I think this was intended to be a customer support channel and they had to be able to delete the messages containing bank info after a certain amount of time. I had read something about it, I don't think carte blanche access to users' messages was sought or given, it was just support conversations. I didn't use it so this is like my memory of 2nd hand info.

historynow 8y ago

It was only a few weeks ago that people were arguing that it was anti-competitive for Facebook not to share data with other companies.

AlexandrB 8y ago
It’s about control. If it’s my data, I should be able to give permission for other apps to access it - regardless of whether Facebook views them as a competitor. Likewise, I should be able to block access for a given third party - regardless of how much money such a “partnership” would generate for Facebook. So yes, it is anti-competitive for Facebook to block access against the explicit wishes of its users. But it’s also despicable to sell user data to whomever without asking permission first. It’s pretty obvious from Facebook’s actions that they consider it their data, not your data.
BEEdwards 8y ago
Opt in vs opt out, pretty clear distinction.
matt4077 8y ago
Intention is so central to judging actions in both the law and ethics generally, it’s bordering on willful ignorance to profess ignorance (recursion intended).

InclinedPlane 8y ago

Interesting. Let's see what the local "defend FB at all costs" group has to say about this.

BoiledCabbage 8y ago

It is absolutely obscene how much of a breach of trust and decency these are. Facebook still hasn't fully come clean because they knew they were doing unsavory activities and just wanted to not get caught and keep getting away with it.

wmeredith 8y ago
I’m sure Zuck will offer a heartfelt apology.
- nathancahill 8y ago
  10 DO heartfelt_apology GOTO 10
  - throwaway6488 8y ago
    Zuckerberg isn't a robot - he's entitled, overconfident, and underappreciative of the depth or complexity of the world beyond his experience or the impact of his actions upon it. Further, he shows no hesitation in imposing his will on others despite those shortcomings, and is entrenched in his perspective and tactics rather than open to learning. More briefly - he's a jerk.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- doodliego 8y ago
  Hopefully from Federal prison with a life sentence. Literally billions of times he and his execs, managers, and engineers have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Federal Wiretap Act, and more.
  - alexis_fr 8y ago
    Facebook could be considered as a strategic military asset, as it is capable of quite accurately mapping people around the world. Relationships between people in Iran, same place same time, same IP, ghost profiles... If you were the CIA, wouldn’t you work on protecting/ preventing such people from having a trial?

catchmeifyoucan 8y ago

Whoa! This makes sense now. "and gave Netflix and Spotify the ability to read Facebook users’ private messages" When I watched 21 on Netflix, Facebook Messenger on my phone suggested to play blackjack, literally the hour after.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gowld 8y ago
That's the reverse direction.
- why_only_15 8y ago
  All of these were data sharing agreements, they were two way. Samsung, for example, had access to Facebook and also gave Facebook contact info

dwd 8y ago

They never sold user data for cash, but the monerary value of what they would have gained in network effects would have had measurable value, or they would not have done it. Time to pay the piper!

AlexandrB 8y ago

> With most of the partnerships, Mr. Satterfield said, the F.T.C. agreement did not require the social network to secure users’ consent before sharing data because Facebook considered the partners extensions of itself — service providers that allowed users to interact with their Facebook friends. Wow, this seems like yet another contortion to get out of asking the user what they want.

thinkloop 8y ago
Dude, we are all one, connected through the universe, don't harsh the buzz with your pesky permissions.

ryanmccullagh 8y ago

Would MZ ever face criminal charges?

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Would MZ ever face criminal charges? He's lied to Congress. He's lied to half of Europe. (Or blown them off.) He's knowingly directed the violation of a federal consent decree and several EU directives. He presides over a platform profiting from mass atrocities in multiple countries. There's plenty to go after him with. The only things protecting him are his standing and lack of unexpected criminality.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- pmarreck 8y ago
  Evidence that he's lied to those entities?
  - 18pfsmt 8y ago
    There is no evidence, just innuendo, raw emotion, and pure discounting of personal responsibility. Many seem to want all the perceived benefits of FB, but none of the costs. Just to be clear, I don't use, nor like FB.
sneak 8y ago
No. The laws under which he might possibly be charged are never applied to billionaires or those with sufficient connections in military or government. The rules for you and I are not the same rules for Zuckerberg or Clapper.
- fdgsdfgsd 8y ago
  Don't forget to incl. Jeff. Epstein

erobbins 8y ago

I'm so glad I left that place. I always had concerns but I had no idea the greed and abuse of users was so entrenched. Working in infra you don't find out about this kind of stuff.

pmarreck 8y ago
It's fine for sharing publicly-palatable things with friends and family members. I wouldn't conduct anything on it that you'd care to keep secret, though.

NN88 8y ago

Great, the Kremlin has your data.

tlb 8y ago

A basic principle of PR is that you should trickle out good news, and get all the bad news out in one dump. Because when bad news trickles out, and the public reads a fresh bit of bad news every day, it does more damage. One wonders at Facebook's very passive strategy here. They're not controlling the narrative at all, and we're reading a fresh bit of bad news almost every day.

rurp 8y ago
One possible explanation is that they are sitting on so much potential bad news it would be a disaster to release all at once.
quadrangle 8y ago
Occam's Razor might suggest this interpretation: Facebook is as bad or worse a company as its strongest critics suggest. There's not some dump of bad news, there's horrific practices everywhere you look, so every investigation uncovers more bad stuff since it's the norm for the company rather than the exception…
theNJR 8y ago
Whoa, my AI Motivator instagram just posted that https://www.instagram.com/p/BrjhQ5UAoTa/ https://www.instagram.com/p/BrjhQ5UAoTa/
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
clomond 8y ago
I don't think many of the employees at various levels understand the "bad news" part of this. Therefore, they can't plan appropriately. I don't think it is intentional but rather a function of most employees being in a weird corporate "filter bubble" with extra strong cool-aid being served on the daily.
- warp_factor 8y ago
  I know a couple Facebook employees. It is actually very disturbing to see at what length they go to cover and find excuses for each of those breaches. Not a lot of the them are taking a step back. Echo chamber...

rhegart 8y ago

“Facebook also allowed Spotify, Netflix and the Royal Bank of Canada to read, write and delete users’ private messages, and to see all participants on a thread — privileges that appeared to go beyond what the companies needed to integrate Facebook into their systems, the records show.” Wow...that’s scary

puranjay 8y ago

Deleted my Facebook nearly 6 months back. Never missed it Deleted my Instagram three weeks back because my feed was 1 ad for every 3 posts. Haven't missed it. If I could only get rid of Whatsapp, I would never need to use anything from this awful company

labster 8y ago
Install Signal, tell your friends. Although I tried getting one friend to switch today, didn't work because of network size. I'm afraid our only alternative is to organize all our really cool stuff on Signal and get 'em with FOMO.
- gvurrdon 8y ago
  It's never worked for me - the answer is always something along the lines of "oh no, I'd have to install another app, it's such a hassle". If only there were some means for people to use whatever apps they liked and for these to communicate with each other.
- fdgsdfgsd 8y ago
  I got my immediate family and the friends I care for (3?) to switch. My family was easy. No pics of my daughter on any social network. "Y'all want pics? install Signal. If I catch you posting on FB, you're cut off" Once mom installed Signal, the rest followed. As to my friends, the ones I actually care for are privacy freaks like me - although they're not techies - and understood its importance.

cantthinkofone 8y ago

This sequence of exposes and revelations doesn't speak to Facebook's credibility. It would be one thing if it was just the incidents surrounding the 2016 elections, but the pattern in all these news reports seems to be that Facebook's design doesn't simply doesn't respect its users. Too many features and plugins Facebook has seem to be leaky in some respect. Messanger does not use default end-to-end encryption for whatever mysterious reason. If Facebook owns the endpoints, it can just as easily obtain the data for themselves before encrypting and submitting the message if it were enabled anyway. How could I have any faith Facebook doesn't collect messages intended to be sent in confidence if collecting them suits Facebook's purposes? I'm not sure however if Facebook's sketchiness is intentional or not. We have few examples of companies that were early movers in the inception days of the modern internet. And the decisions made early on prefigured everything that was to come. At this time I would look to other others for inspiration about the correct way to make use of a data jackpot. Facebook's own totally unrestricted laissez-faire mentality in the relentless pursuit and utilization of its data is undermining itself.

firstplacelast 8y ago
Based on the salaries at Facebook, I would hope it’s intentional. If not, what the hell are they paying top-of-industry salaries for?

ericzawo 8y ago

When is the FTC getting involved?

acjohnson55 8y ago
When a new administration shows up. Maybe that's not fair, but I just assume that very little in the form of corporate regulation is on the table right now.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

malloreon 8y ago

Question for the most of the people who read this who will still use fb/instagram/messenger all day, or even at all: is there something so bad that fb could do that would get you to stop? If so, what is it? Where is your red line? Or absent an alternative with fb's network effects, will you keep using their products regardless of the unseen costs you rack up?

wolco 8y ago
Start charging money.
- shard972 8y ago
  That would be a good thing? In all seriousness, if companies actually had to pay for your data, suddenly their business models would flip and you would find that we would go from being the products to being the customers.
logicchains 8y ago
>will you keep using their products regardless of the unseen costs you rack up? Honest answer: my purchasing/social network data is worth extremely little to me, so I don't care who has it. And I don't have a problem with advertising; I prefer to allocate responsibility to individuals for their own decisions, so if somebody is influenced by an advertisement, if anybody is to be faulted then it's themselves, not the advertisement/advertiser.
crocodiletears 8y ago
I can't think of any concrete red-line that Facebook could cross. I've never been a techno-utopian, and the Snowden leaks were the catalyst that drove me to learn programming. I recall being in my early teens, when I went to create my (first) Facebook account. I mentioned it to my dad. He explicitly told me that whatever I did on Facebook would go to their servers, that whatever reached their servers was theirs, and that they would do whatever they wanted with that data regardless of whether you agreed to it or not. The whole reason I gave up and made an account was because my friends had already given the app their contact list, and the service already had my phone number. From day one I've treated online services like amoral, dangerous animals, and so far nothing these organizations have done has especially shocked me, though I have been impressed or surprised on occasion. My mantra is generally 'if I or the NSA could imagine it, private industry will attempt it'. I still get a lot of value out of my Facebook account. Facebook pages are a gateway to niche interest groups, social trends, and the political fringes that would otherwise be inaccessible to outsiders. Seeing the ads Facebook puts in my feed helps me to calibrate my mental model of how I'm being observed, who's sharing data with who, and how online services perceive me (I typically use ad-block, and only occasionally close it to check my ads). If I want to contact someone I've only met in passing, keep up with family and political bubbles, or do a bit of background investigation, Facebook's there for me. Accessing the service requires a bit of a faustian bargain. But by the time I joined, the country had already made it on my behalf, so I opted to reap the benefits of that bargain rather than just being social collateral. Facebook could scare me off the way Google Search did - by sanitizing its content feed to the degree Google's sanitized its search. But I'd still use Messenger, and any other useful service they come up with. But otherwise it'd have to become obsolete in the same way as MySpace.

discordance 8y ago

My surprise is not that Facebook did this, but that developers within Facebook built this privacy violating ecosystem without question or publicly voiced concern. You guys sold your family and friends out for RSUs.

EGreg 8y ago

How much more until we all start using end to end encryption? I don’t mean server to client. I mean clients have the keys and only the clients. Why are we relying on third parties to pretty please enforce access control?

koboll 8y ago

I'd love to hear a Facebook critic rebut this thread re: the article: https://twitter.com/_mades/status/1075228269845336064 https://twitter.com/_mades/status/1075228269845336064 What this seems to boil down to is a side channel for certain partners with looser technical controls but tighter monitoring of misuse, and no evidence that that tradeoff actually resulted in any misuse that couldn't have occurred through normal data access channels.

smackfu 8y ago
If you don’t trust Facebook to do the right thing, that thread is not much of a defense, since it just says they will police their partners.
- Ajedi32 8y ago
  It also sounds like access to certain APIs was much more limited than the NYT article implied: > When you hear things like read/write access that access was only granted when the user gave permission. For example, if you share a Netflix link to messenger, the post is coming from Netflix. > If you're sharing using messenger, you're able to search who you're sharing with through Netflix. If you then delete the message within Netflix, it would delete on Facebook. Very similar to using Tweetdeck for Twitter - same permissions
- koboll 8y ago
  It's not a matter of whether I trust them. It's a matter of whether any misuse of data actually occurred, or whether this is a lot of innuendo with no evidence that any harm was, or even could be, done.

randomacct3847 8y ago

It’s crazy that there ever is/was an endpoint to read a user’s private messages. What exactly would ever be a good use case for that where a user would knowingly agree to it.

matt4077 8y ago
A third-party app allowing you to chat, possibly using more than one network? C. F. email.
pmarreck 8y ago
Did you know that every single email you've ever sent was readable by every single mail delivery agent in between?
- 18pfsmt 8y ago
  It is possible this random person on HN was using PGP, so I don't think it's fair to use "every single" verbiage as it is clearly hyperbole.
pmiller2 8y ago
Here’s one: I used to work for a company that made social media compliance software for financial companies. Agents/brokers/salespeople had to connect their FB accounts and agree to have their PMs monitored so the compliance department their home companies could monitor what they said. This was so the companies wouldn’t fall afoul of FINRA/SEC/etc. IIRC, we could see the agrnt’s half of the exchange only, and they were certainly informed of exactly what was going on. The software did other things, too, such as being able to post approved content on their behalf, but this was a core function. Their alternative was to not be able to use Facebook at all.

polskibus 8y ago

Does anyone know if described behavior violate GDPR?

rock_hard 8y ago

After reading facebooks response I am once again disappointed by the art of journalism we have to deal with these days :( Turns out NYT either doesn’t understand the technical details or doesn’t want to https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/12/facebooks-partners/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/12/facebooks-partners/

pookieinc 8y ago
While I'm also disappointed by many news organizations / journalists these days, NYT is not one of them. In fact, they are one of the few newspapers that are keeping larger entities in check and doing their job by reporting them. I've been continually impressed by NYT, specifically, for its care in ensuring the highest level of integrity. Mistakes do happen and as far as I know, they've been pretty good about apologizing for them. If it weren't for this linked article (much of which I learned a significant amount and was news to me), we wouldn't have had such a response from Facebook with further clarification on this topic. For example, did I know they were also passing my private messages to other entities? No. I also don't blame myself because they could've made it a lot more obvious that I was sharing such personal content with other third parties. Journalists have a tough job, but they should be commended when bringing to light articles like this.
- porpoisely 8y ago
  For me, the nytimes and the big media companies are the biggest disappointments. Smaller and local media companies tend to be far more reliable and trustworthy than large corporations. And integrity isn't a word I'd associate with the nytimes or any major corporation for that matter. They are greedy self-serving entities with their own agenda, like every business. I do believe corporations like the NYTimes and facebook have accrued too much power and are corrupt and a destructive force in the country and the world. I think we need more competition in the traditional media and social media space. For all the talk about monopolies in tech, we talk too little about the monopolies in news and media along with every other industry from agriculture to banking. Also, Facebook is a symptom of a national ( or international ) economic system that applies to pretty much every major industry today. Too much consolidation and too little respect for privacy. Facebook is providing what every industry ( including the news industry ) wants. Information and data. And every industry is invading their own customers' privacy and selling data. Credit card and banks sell your data. The NYTimes sells your data ( after all they sell ads too ).

edhelas 8y ago

> Facebook empowered Apple to hide from Facebook users all indicators that its devices were asking for data. Apple devices also had access to the contact numbers and calendar entries of people who had changed their account settings to disable all sharing, the records show. > Apple officials said they were not aware that Facebook had granted its devices any special access. They added that any shared data remained on the devices and was not available to anyone other than the users. Any more information about that? I would be curious to know if we have actual proofs about those statements.

Despegar 8y ago
That's referring to the Facebook integration in iOS. There were similar integrations for Flickr, Vimeo and Twitter as well. These have been removed as of iOS 11. It would let you sync your contacts and add their Facebook profile pic to them, as well as post to Facebook using a system UI. Apparently this API gave Apple more permission than was needed for these features, but that Apple was unaware of it. https://www.macrumors.com/2017/06/05/facebook-twitter-integration-eliminated-ios-11/ https://www.macrumors.com/2017/06/05/facebook-twitter-integr...

a3n 8y ago

I guess we can change "I have nothing to hide" to "I have nothing hidden."

happppy 8y ago

Now I really doubt if whatsapp is secure, even though they say it has end-to-end encryption.

temp123131123 8y ago
its not secure. if you have facebook app and whatsapp installed. the whatsapp can share data with the facebook app and upload it to their servers. messages on your phone are not encrypted. they are only encrypted during sending.
- happppy 8y ago
  Oh my goodness, I should just delete fb.
- g45y45 8y ago
  Also, if you are on android and do a Gdrive backup, all the WA logs are in the clear on googles server. They will gladly pass these logs to authorities on with the appropriate paperwork.
- robin_reala 8y ago
  Just Android, or with iOS too?
- MrBra 8y ago
  A good workaround for Android is installing "Friendly" in place of official FB app. Not sure if there's an iOS version too.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

bitxbit 8y ago

I am worried about how much access was given to Palantir.

NelsonMinar 8y ago

I always wonder about the engineers at Facebook who implemented a feature like this. Someone like me, more or less. Did they stop to wonder why they were being told to bypass user privacy preferences? Did they raise any internal questions about ethics? Did any of them consider becoming a whistleblower? Or perhaps everyone who works for Facebook is convinced this kind of data sharing is OK?

gizmodo59 8y ago
The question to ask is rather, how much money is OK to remain silent. Unfortunately for the majority it’s not in the millions. Almost any big corporation does some activity that are not strictly in the ethical norms. To me, strict laws must be passed and people must be held accountable to really see a change.
squish78 8y ago
Most likely why they aggressively hire college grads and keep the developer workforce young. I doubt they teach corporate ethics in any comp sci program.
- foolrush 8y ago
  Ethics, labour, and politics are intertwined. A single parent risks blacklisting and imploding a means of income, for example. Markets regulate themselves to a profit driven “ethics” solution that reverberates.
- ardy42 8y ago
  > I doubt they teach corporate ethics in any comp sci program. Actually, when I was in school, there actually was an extensive ethics module in one of the required courses, and I think it was required by an accreditation body or the ACM. It also felt like it was used to satisfy some kind of writing-intensive course requirement, since it consisted of banging out 10-page papers on various topics. Neither the professors nor the students took it very seriously because everyone was more interested in technology, not philosophy. It felt like it only existed to check-off a checkbox.
- 8y ago

known 8y ago

Govt can regulate FB with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Card_Industry_Data_Security_Standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Card_Industry_Data_Sec...

robut_98765 8y ago

Why do people even speak to Zuckerberg about Facebook? Yes he is the CEO but he's also the Kellyanne Conway of Facebook pretty much.

patrickg_zill 8y ago

So now I understand how it is, that despite putting no personal data on my Instagram account, the Amazon ads I see when I browse Instagram are so very well targeted to me...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

aussieguy1234 8y ago

Where WhatsApp messages shared with Netflix and Spotify? They're owned by Facebook. I'll never use Facebook Messenger again

kofejnik 8y ago

What really bothers me, is that of all possible partners, they gave access to Yandex, and Yandex == FSB