3 ms·

Not sure what you're talking about, Facebook explicitly confirms what NYT writes??? >Did partners get access to messages? >Yes. But people had to explicitly si

Not sure what you're talking about, Facebook explicitly confirms what NYT writes??? >Did partners get access to messages? >Yes. But people had to explicitly sign in to Facebook first to use a partner’s messaging feature. Take Spotify for example. After signing in to your Facebook account in Spotify’s desktop app, you could then send and receive messages without ever leaving the app. Our API provided partners with access to the person’s messages in order to power this type of feature. Facebook is trying to spin it in a positive way ('you had to sign up first!!'), but nowhere did you agree that Spotify could read all of your messages.

IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
If we carefully parse this, and suspend any usual assumption of good faith, this actually seems much worse: > But people had to explicitly sign in to Facebook first to use a partner’s messaging feature. This does not say you had to "explicitly sign in first for Spotify to get access". It says you had to sign in to use the feature enabled by Spotify already having access. > After signing in to your Facebook account in Spotify’s desktop app, you could then send and receive messages without ever leaving the app. This says exactly the same, only using the Spotify example. It again dodges the question when data sharing started. I hold the idea of assuming good faith in the highest regard. But a statement as important as this must have gone through several layers of lawyers with the finest combs available, right? To then so artfully miss answering the actual question... It would be quite a coincidence. If indeed it is deliberate, OP of this thread falling for this artfully crafted admission of guilt should actually command some respect for the craftsmanship of their PR people, in a certain, ethically-challenged light. Although people ignorantly finding fault with everything the Times does may just be an easy mark for PR wordsmiths. Edit: After perusing OP rock_hard’s history, I will have to once again break “assumption of good faith”, sorry. Almost literally all their posts are defending Facebook, or making accusations against Apple, Google, or the New York Times. I’ve often seen responsible disclosures of self-interest by, among others, people working at Google here. This is the first time I’ve seen a pattern this suggestive of the opposite.
- makomk 8y ago
  The usual way these partnerships worked is that Facebook allowed partners to ask users to grant them more account access than ordinary Facebook apps were allowed - in the form of special partner-only Facebook app permissions that could only be obtained by approved apps. That is, it didn't bypass the normal need to request permission from the user, it just allowed them to request extra permissions. There's no reason to believe that the Spotify integration is any different. Even those leaked emails just talked about adding more permissions that companies could request.
SilasX 8y ago
I don't know on what planet that's supposed to be reassuring. They thought that sending FB messages within Spotify was such a whizbang feature that they gave Spotify unrestricted access to FB PMs? "But it's okay, they had to be signed in to FB"? If they wanted to do this, couldn't they have done some plugin, where all interaction with FB features is within that plugin but inaccessible to to the broader app? Because otherwise, they have to effectively assume that this partner has gotten full access to the PMs. In crypto terms, a "total break" for that user. I'm not even sure how this makes sense from a greedy megaglobocorp perspective. FB should be guarding that data tightly against other companies having it; their exclusive access is valuable. Help?

IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago

If we carefully parse this, and suspend any usual assumption of good faith, this actually seems much worse: > But people had to explicitly sign in to Facebook first to use a partner’s messaging feature. This does not say you had to "explicitly sign in first for Spotify to get access". It says you had to sign in to use the feature enabled by Spotify already having access. > After signing in to your Facebook account in Spotify’s desktop app, you could then send and receive messages without ever leaving the app. This says exactly the same, only using the Spotify example. It again dodges the question when data sharing started. I hold the idea of assuming good faith in the highest regard. But a statement as important as this must have gone through several layers of lawyers with the finest combs available, right? To then so artfully miss answering the actual question... It would be quite a coincidence. If indeed it is deliberate, OP of this thread falling for this artfully crafted admission of guilt should actually command some respect for the craftsmanship of their PR people, in a certain, ethically-challenged light. Although people ignorantly finding fault with everything the Times does may just be an easy mark for PR wordsmiths. Edit: After perusing OP rock_hard’s history, I will have to once again break “assumption of good faith”, sorry. Almost literally all their posts are defending Facebook, or making accusations against Apple, Google, or the New York Times. I’ve often seen responsible disclosures of self-interest by, among others, people working at Google here. This is the first time I’ve seen a pattern this suggestive of the opposite.

makomk 8y ago
The usual way these partnerships worked is that Facebook allowed partners to ask users to grant them more account access than ordinary Facebook apps were allowed - in the form of special partner-only Facebook app permissions that could only be obtained by approved apps. That is, it didn't bypass the normal need to request permission from the user, it just allowed them to request extra permissions. There's no reason to believe that the Spotify integration is any different. Even those leaked emails just talked about adding more permissions that companies could request.

SilasX 8y ago

I don't know on what planet that's supposed to be reassuring. They thought that sending FB messages within Spotify was such a whizbang feature that they gave Spotify unrestricted access to FB PMs? "But it's okay, they had to be signed in to FB"? If they wanted to do this, couldn't they have done some plugin, where all interaction with FB features is within that plugin but inaccessible to to the broader app? Because otherwise, they have to effectively assume that this partner has gotten full access to the PMs. In crypto terms, a "total break" for that user. I'm not even sure how this makes sense from a greedy megaglobocorp perspective. FB should be guarding that data tightly against other companies having it; their exclusive access is valuable. Help?