5 ms·

If I connect IFTTT to my Gmail to automate some aspect thereof I can reasonably expect it to have access to my emails. If I connect my Facebook to my Spotify s

If I connect IFTTT to my Gmail to automate some aspect thereof I can reasonably expect it to have access to my emails. If I connect my Facebook to my Spotify so that I can log in with one account and maybe share music with friends, I don't expect Spotify to have access to my private messages. Obviously context is important, but I'm not seeing the double standard.

o10449366 8y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the circumstances under which Spotify would have permission to read your messages are 1) if you use their Messenger app plugin 2) if you had connected to Messenger through Spotify's desktop app. I believe this feature has been deprecated for a few years now, though. Even if you sign up for Spotify using your Facebook account or connect your Facebook account to Spotify that does not give them access to your Messenger messages. It is my understanding that it required the user to opt into specifically connecting Messenger for that circumstance to occur.
nindalf 8y ago
The Facebook integration with Spotify allowed you to send messages and receive from within Spotify. Could you think of a way to implement this without giving the Spotify client access to those messages? What’s more, users explicitly opted in, giving Spotify permission to do so. [1] No reasonable person would use Spotify to send and receive messages after explicitly granting the client permissions and then claim “but I don’t expect Spotify to have access to my private messages” [1] - https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17561784/django-social-auth-extended-facebook-permissions-like-spotify https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17561784/django-social-a...
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  At various stages of Spotify's life, Facebook login was required to use the service. I'm a long-time user, and I've learned about the messages feature from HN. It wasn't really even advertised in the UI, and not the reason I - or many other people - connected Facebook to it.
  - bestnameever 8y ago
    Oh wow you are totally right. It had never occurred to me that Spotify requiring Facebook to use the service was a means for them to gain access to your Facebook account.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      Social logins is - and was, back then - a thing people are used to.
    - supermatt 8y ago
      i can’t tell if this is snark, but as an app developer, i have considered facebook login as a means for a relatively frictionless user experience, not as a way for me to gain access to a users facebook account.
      - nindalf 8y ago
        No no, if you added social login to your app it's because you're evil. You want to monetize your users, selling their data like it's 2014. You're literally Cambridge Analytica. /s
      - acct1771 8y ago
        But security-wise, it is the same.
        supermatt 8y ago
        Not at all. FUD. If you're going to make a statement like that at least come with some facts. There is a massive difference between me getting login permission TO MY OWN APP, and accessing a users facebook account, or masquerading as them on other apps.
        acct1771 8y ago
        ...until Facebook mishandles their end, for example, the API. Which they have been shown to about a dozen times over this month.
- DoctorOetker 8y ago
  but how will a user discover the new app will allow him/her to send messages from within Spotify before installation? If the user only discovers afterward, then there is no valid informed consent...
- supermatt 8y ago
  as a spotify user since they only used facebook login, i wasn’t even aware of this messaging feature. blind consent is not consent
- xg15 8y ago
  Even if I wanted to use Spotify's messaging client, I'd imagine a layman's expectation would be that Spotify needed access to send and receive it's own messages - it's not that obvious it needs to be able to read that email to your boss you wrote three years ago. Of course as a technician with knowledge of how OAuth and web APIs work, the implication that it really needs access to all messages seems a lot more reasonable - but I don't think this view is necessarily valid in a larger context. Implementing more fine-grained permissions is absolutely possible. See e.g. Telegram: Even though Telegram bots appear as mostly ordinary users, they by default cannot access the messages of the channels they joined - they can only access commands that users were explicitly sending to them. You need a special permission to have a bot actually be able to access a channel like a human user would.

o10449366 8y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the circumstances under which Spotify would have permission to read your messages are 1) if you use their Messenger app plugin 2) if you had connected to Messenger through Spotify's desktop app. I believe this feature has been deprecated for a few years now, though. Even if you sign up for Spotify using your Facebook account or connect your Facebook account to Spotify that does not give them access to your Messenger messages. It is my understanding that it required the user to opt into specifically connecting Messenger for that circumstance to occur.

nindalf 8y ago

The Facebook integration with Spotify allowed you to send messages and receive from within Spotify. Could you think of a way to implement this without giving the Spotify client access to those messages? What’s more, users explicitly opted in, giving Spotify permission to do so. [1] No reasonable person would use Spotify to send and receive messages after explicitly granting the client permissions and then claim “but I don’t expect Spotify to have access to my private messages” [1] - https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17561784/django-social-auth-extended-facebook-permissions-like-spotify https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17561784/django-social-a...

TeMPOraL 8y ago
At various stages of Spotify's life, Facebook login was required to use the service. I'm a long-time user, and I've learned about the messages feature from HN. It wasn't really even advertised in the UI, and not the reason I - or many other people - connected Facebook to it.
- bestnameever 8y ago
  Oh wow you are totally right. It had never occurred to me that Spotify requiring Facebook to use the service was a means for them to gain access to your Facebook account.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Social logins is - and was, back then - a thing people are used to.
  - supermatt 8y ago
    i can’t tell if this is snark, but as an app developer, i have considered facebook login as a means for a relatively frictionless user experience, not as a way for me to gain access to a users facebook account.
    - nindalf 8y ago
      No no, if you added social login to your app it's because you're evil. You want to monetize your users, selling their data like it's 2014. You're literally Cambridge Analytica. /s
    - acct1771 8y ago
      But security-wise, it is the same.
      - supermatt 8y ago
        Not at all. FUD. If you're going to make a statement like that at least come with some facts. There is a massive difference between me getting login permission TO MY OWN APP, and accessing a users facebook account, or masquerading as them on other apps.
        acct1771 8y ago
        ...until Facebook mishandles their end, for example, the API. Which they have been shown to about a dozen times over this month.
DoctorOetker 8y ago
but how will a user discover the new app will allow him/her to send messages from within Spotify before installation? If the user only discovers afterward, then there is no valid informed consent...
supermatt 8y ago
as a spotify user since they only used facebook login, i wasn’t even aware of this messaging feature. blind consent is not consent
xg15 8y ago
Even if I wanted to use Spotify's messaging client, I'd imagine a layman's expectation would be that Spotify needed access to send and receive it's own messages - it's not that obvious it needs to be able to read that email to your boss you wrote three years ago. Of course as a technician with knowledge of how OAuth and web APIs work, the implication that it really needs access to all messages seems a lot more reasonable - but I don't think this view is necessarily valid in a larger context. Implementing more fine-grained permissions is absolutely possible. See e.g. Telegram: Even though Telegram bots appear as mostly ordinary users, they by default cannot access the messages of the channels they joined - they can only access commands that users were explicitly sending to them. You need a special permission to have a bot actually be able to access a channel like a human user would.