7 ms·

No, they didn’t “give it away”. Please let’s stick to facts. The news is being extremely dishonest. Apps that you could send FB messages through could see the m

No, they didn’t “give it away”. Please let’s stick to facts. The news is being extremely dishonest. Apps that you could send FB messages through could see the message (how else would it work?) And it was explicitly opt-in, users had to authorize it. “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.” https://www.thewrap.com/members/2018/12/19/facebook-admits-netflix-spotify-access-user-messages/ https://www.thewrap.com/members/2018/12/19/facebook-admits-n...

shaki-dora 8y ago
Read that quote again. It only says opt-in was needed to use this „feature“, not for data access. And that does not even include the other parties in those messages.
- simplecomplex 8y ago
  “Did partners get access to messages? Yes. But people had to explicitly sign in to Facebook first to use a partner’s messaging feature,” Konstantinos Papamiltiadis, director of developer platforms and programs at Facebook, wrote in the blog post. “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 did not play fast and loose with peoples data or abuse their privacy. They don’t sell or give away user data.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    So all they had to do was sign in, and those programs got access to private messages. What are you trying to refute, exactly?
    - simplecomplex 8y ago
      I'm refuting that they gave away user data, which is factually false. Here's Facebook's explanation: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/12/facebooks-messaging-partnerships/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/12/facebooks-messaging-par... "In order for you to write a message to a Facebook friend from within Spotify, for instance, we needed to give Spotify “write access.” For you to be able to read messages back, we needed Spotify to have “read access.” “Delete access” meant that if you deleted a message from within Spotify, it would also delete from Facebook. No third party was reading your private messages, or writing messages to your friends without your permission. Many news stories imply we were shipping over private messages to partners, which is not correct." It's become clear from engaging in this discussion that people aren't interested in facts or context, but have a chip on their shoulder about Facebook. Others have also been misinformed by inaccurate news stories. I don't even use Facebook, yet it's pretty easy to understand the facts if you're actually interested in them.
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        The claim wasn't that they opened a TCP connection to the partners and forced private data over the line. The claim was that they gave away access to partners that didn't need it, or even know about it. "These partnerships were agreed via extensive negotiations and documentation, detailing how the third party would use the API, and what data they could and couldn’t access." That's not how you treat people's private data. Allow the app to send messages, maybe allow the app to read replies to what it sent (did Netflix even need this at all?), don't give it full read access that relies on a pinky swear to keep data safe. And at your earlier comment, sending a message does not inherently require that the sender be able to read anything.
        simplecomplex 8y ago
        The linked Facebook article includes a screenshot of the feature in Spotify allowing people to send and receive Facebook messages. "In order for you to write a message to a Facebook friend from within Spotify, for instance, we needed to give Spotify “write access.” For you to be able to read messages back, we needed Spotify to have “read access.” “Delete access” meant that if you deleted a message from within Spotify, it would also delete from Facebook." You've got an axe to grind and its tiring me out. Whatever.
  - shaki-dora 8y ago
    That still says they had access anyway, but you had to opt in to use the feature. Work on your reading comprehension!

shaki-dora 8y ago

Read that quote again. It only says opt-in was needed to use this „feature“, not for data access. And that does not even include the other parties in those messages.

simplecomplex 8y ago
“Did partners get access to messages? Yes. But people had to explicitly sign in to Facebook first to use a partner’s messaging feature,” Konstantinos Papamiltiadis, director of developer platforms and programs at Facebook, wrote in the blog post. “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 did not play fast and loose with peoples data or abuse their privacy. They don’t sell or give away user data.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  So all they had to do was sign in, and those programs got access to private messages. What are you trying to refute, exactly?
  - simplecomplex 8y ago
    I'm refuting that they gave away user data, which is factually false. Here's Facebook's explanation: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/12/facebooks-messaging-partnerships/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/12/facebooks-messaging-par... "In order for you to write a message to a Facebook friend from within Spotify, for instance, we needed to give Spotify “write access.” For you to be able to read messages back, we needed Spotify to have “read access.” “Delete access” meant that if you deleted a message from within Spotify, it would also delete from Facebook. No third party was reading your private messages, or writing messages to your friends without your permission. Many news stories imply we were shipping over private messages to partners, which is not correct." It's become clear from engaging in this discussion that people aren't interested in facts or context, but have a chip on their shoulder about Facebook. Others have also been misinformed by inaccurate news stories. I don't even use Facebook, yet it's pretty easy to understand the facts if you're actually interested in them.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      The claim wasn't that they opened a TCP connection to the partners and forced private data over the line. The claim was that they gave away access to partners that didn't need it, or even know about it. "These partnerships were agreed via extensive negotiations and documentation, detailing how the third party would use the API, and what data they could and couldn’t access." That's not how you treat people's private data. Allow the app to send messages, maybe allow the app to read replies to what it sent (did Netflix even need this at all?), don't give it full read access that relies on a pinky swear to keep data safe. And at your earlier comment, sending a message does not inherently require that the sender be able to read anything.
      - simplecomplex 8y ago
        The linked Facebook article includes a screenshot of the feature in Spotify allowing people to send and receive Facebook messages. "In order for you to write a message to a Facebook friend from within Spotify, for instance, we needed to give Spotify “write access.” For you to be able to read messages back, we needed Spotify to have “read access.” “Delete access” meant that if you deleted a message from within Spotify, it would also delete from Facebook." You've got an axe to grind and its tiring me out. Whatever.
- shaki-dora 8y ago
  That still says they had access anyway, but you had to opt in to use the feature. Work on your reading comprehension!