4 ms·

Yep, that’s pretty much how I remember it. Giving FB the benefit of the doubt, I suppose it’s possible that there could have been an additional permissions dia

Yep, that’s pretty much how I remember it. Giving FB the benefit of the doubt, I suppose it’s possible that there could have been an additional permissions dialog that popped up whenever messaging integration happened. But I’m usually pretty good at being paranoid about giving apps unnecessary FB perms. Personally I derive zero utility from integrating Spotify and messenger, and my private FB messages are one of the most sensitive data streams, period. So I find it hard to believe that I would have missed this. Which makes facebook’s latest vigorous non-apology feel a bit off to me.

jahlove 8y ago
I mean, it does say it gives Spotify "access [to] my data at any time". Messages are just data, after all...
- milin 8y ago
  I feel they could have elaborated on 'data' a bit. To most people, saying 'messages' is more alarming than just saying 'data'.
  - _asummers 8y ago
    And by the same token, wall posts are data too, so there should be no need to specify that explicitly if that's the way data is being interpreted.
    - m_fayer 8y ago
      That's exactly right. The fact that "wall posts" is in that list gives you a false notion of the granularity of the items in the list. One of those is not nearly as granular as the rest - if you assume that it is, like I did, you guess that "data" means "where you went to High School" or your "favorite movie" or some such, not "everything." Really deceptive.
- SilasX 8y ago
  In context, "my data" means "the data referred to in the above three bullet points". Otherwise, this of the same type (though not magnitude) of thing as "Spotify may induct my firstborn into a satanic cult."
toufka 8y ago
That is absolutely a dark pattern if that dialog box was intended to speak to read/write access of messages. "Access my data at any time" is truly deceptive. The icon is one specifying "time" - a moon in the dark; night time. And the operative context seems to be "at any time". However, the grant is actually for, "data". Which is itself seemingly already being granted by the above "Posts", and "Public Information". If Facebook presumed that "data" included everything, then why did they ask for access to posts and public information above? It is clearly deceptive. If they thought what they did was in the right, then why deceive? And if they felt like they made a mistake, why not make the new dialog boxes not deceptive? That they do not feel that they can sustain their business model without being deceptive makes NYT articles like this all the more necessary; if people really don't care about their privacy, then go ahead and ask for their privacy - don't dance around and say you're providing a service (and omit that you're also taking their private data). If they asked clearly and they were granted the ability to farm out to third parties whole read/write access to all data, then I'd be more inclined to believe that their users were actually acquiescing.
- save_ferris 8y ago
  I completely agree. They're very clear about who can access what in the first few statements, but "Access my data" is so vague. It takes a very cynical perception to accurately assume what they mean by this, and they absolutely take advantage of this. Cynics wear the tin-foil hats in the minds of many, and nobody wants to be like that.
- patja 8y ago
  Permission to post on behalf of the user and read posts from the user's feed does not grant access to messages to any other app getting these permissions from a user. If they were getting access to messages, it was a special stealthy "partner only" deal not reflected in the permissions prompt as posted on imgur above.
dirkgently 8y ago
> my private FB messages are one of the most sensitive data streams, period. So you are still trusting FB with your most sensitive data. The mind boggles at the sheer lack of self-respect from FB users. Sorry but I have no sympathy for those who are handing over their data to FB and then bitching about FB abusing it. To me, all FB users are like Trump supporters - they continue to support him even after all that has happened in last 4 years. FB users keep using it even after FB is abusing their data from the day ut started

jahlove 8y ago

I mean, it does say it gives Spotify "access [to] my data at any time". Messages are just data, after all...

milin 8y ago
I feel they could have elaborated on 'data' a bit. To most people, saying 'messages' is more alarming than just saying 'data'.
- _asummers 8y ago
  And by the same token, wall posts are data too, so there should be no need to specify that explicitly if that's the way data is being interpreted.
  - m_fayer 8y ago
    That's exactly right. The fact that "wall posts" is in that list gives you a false notion of the granularity of the items in the list. One of those is not nearly as granular as the rest - if you assume that it is, like I did, you guess that "data" means "where you went to High School" or your "favorite movie" or some such, not "everything." Really deceptive.
SilasX 8y ago
In context, "my data" means "the data referred to in the above three bullet points". Otherwise, this of the same type (though not magnitude) of thing as "Spotify may induct my firstborn into a satanic cult."

toufka 8y ago

That is absolutely a dark pattern if that dialog box was intended to speak to read/write access of messages. "Access my data at any time" is truly deceptive. The icon is one specifying "time" - a moon in the dark; night time. And the operative context seems to be "at any time". However, the grant is actually for, "data". Which is itself seemingly already being granted by the above "Posts", and "Public Information". If Facebook presumed that "data" included everything, then why did they ask for access to posts and public information above? It is clearly deceptive. If they thought what they did was in the right, then why deceive? And if they felt like they made a mistake, why not make the new dialog boxes not deceptive? That they do not feel that they can sustain their business model without being deceptive makes NYT articles like this all the more necessary; if people really don't care about their privacy, then go ahead and ask for their privacy - don't dance around and say you're providing a service (and omit that you're also taking their private data). If they asked clearly and they were granted the ability to farm out to third parties whole read/write access to all data, then I'd be more inclined to believe that their users were actually acquiescing.

save_ferris 8y ago
I completely agree. They're very clear about who can access what in the first few statements, but "Access my data" is so vague. It takes a very cynical perception to accurately assume what they mean by this, and they absolutely take advantage of this. Cynics wear the tin-foil hats in the minds of many, and nobody wants to be like that.
patja 8y ago
Permission to post on behalf of the user and read posts from the user's feed does not grant access to messages to any other app getting these permissions from a user. If they were getting access to messages, it was a special stealthy "partner only" deal not reflected in the permissions prompt as posted on imgur above.

dirkgently 8y ago

> my private FB messages are one of the most sensitive data streams, period. So you are still trusting FB with your most sensitive data. The mind boggles at the sheer lack of self-respect from FB users. Sorry but I have no sympathy for those who are handing over their data to FB and then bitching about FB abusing it. To me, all FB users are like Trump supporters - they continue to support him even after all that has happened in last 4 years. FB users keep using it even after FB is abusing their data from the day ut started