4 ms·

Individually negotiated confidential deals are not the same as open APIs and protocols which is where alternative clients normally come into play. And the “alte

by jxdxbx 8y ago

Individually negotiated confidential deals are not the same as open APIs and protocols which is where alternative clients normally come into play. And the “alternative client” stuff doesn’t even apply to Amazon, Bing etc

makomk 8y ago
Ironically, the whole point of having individual deals rather than an API open to everyone seems to have been ensuring the companies didn't do anything dodgy with people's data. Then the New York Times spun Facebook's approval process as them giving those companies special access to users' data, even when that data never left the end user devices, and now this has apparently lead to a criminal investigation.
- untog 8y ago
  > even when that data never left the end user devices Do we know that to be true? In any case, I'm pretty sure they don't bring criminal cases like this frivolously. There's obviously something here.
  - makomk 8y ago
    You see the scary descriptions and illustrations of how much information was shared with the Blackberry Hub app in the previous New York Times article about this at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/03/technology/facebook-device-partners-users-friends-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/03/technology/fa...? Well, their reporters got that information by sniffing the network traffic from the app. They knew exactly where the data was going, and clearly they didn't see it going to Blackberry's servers or that'd be right in paragraph one of the article.
    - untog 8y ago
      Presumably Blackberry is using an access token to fetch that data, I can't see any reason why they couldn't also store that access token server side and query data without it ever appearing in device logs.
      - bryan_w 8y ago
        The same could be said for mail.app sending your Gmail password to Apple, but it would be rather unlikely.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  >>Ironically, the whole point of having individual deals rather than an API open to everyone seems to have been ensuring the companies didn't do anything dodgy with people's data. They were not charged for special API access? Still, FB might have used this as a negotiating tool as they dealt with Apple, Microsoft etc etc

by jxdxbx 8y ago

makomk 8y ago

Ironically, the whole point of having individual deals rather than an API open to everyone seems to have been ensuring the companies didn't do anything dodgy with people's data. Then the New York Times spun Facebook's approval process as them giving those companies special access to users' data, even when that data never left the end user devices, and now this has apparently lead to a criminal investigation.

untog 8y ago
> even when that data never left the end user devices Do we know that to be true? In any case, I'm pretty sure they don't bring criminal cases like this frivolously. There's obviously something here.
- makomk 8y ago
  You see the scary descriptions and illustrations of how much information was shared with the Blackberry Hub app in the previous New York Times article about this at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/03/technology/facebook-device-partners-users-friends-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/03/technology/fa...? Well, their reporters got that information by sniffing the network traffic from the app. They knew exactly where the data was going, and clearly they didn't see it going to Blackberry's servers or that'd be right in paragraph one of the article.
  - untog 8y ago
    Presumably Blackberry is using an access token to fetch that data, I can't see any reason why they couldn't also store that access token server side and query data without it ever appearing in device logs.
    - bryan_w 8y ago
      The same could be said for mail.app sending your Gmail password to Apple, but it would be rather unlikely.
onetimemanytime 8y ago
>>Ironically, the whole point of having individual deals rather than an API open to everyone seems to have been ensuring the companies didn't do anything dodgy with people's data. They were not charged for special API access? Still, FB might have used this as a negotiating tool as they dealt with Apple, Microsoft etc etc